The fast track process which can be initiated by a creditor or the corporate debtor itself cuts down the time taken to complete an insolvency resolution to almost half as compared to the regular process under the IBC.
The lease premium and rent given to the Corporate Debtor are not included in Section 14(1)(D) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
An application filed to initiate CIRP against the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the IBC Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited.
A key element that differentiates the IBC from previous legislation governing corporate insolvency is the distribution waterfall in the event of liquidation.
interim finance can be raised by the resolution professional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The resolution professional is authorized to raise interim finance after obtaining approval from the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Case of “Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG shipyard vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in which it was held that the IBC provisions will prevail over the provisions laid down in the “Customs Act, 1962” and also set aside the order of the NCLAT”.
NCLT specified the dress code for NCLT President, NCLT Members, Legal Practitioners, Authorized Representatives, Interim Resolution Professional, Liquidator, Resolution Professional, and parties present in person.
the Operational Creditors are only entitled for minimum of the Liquidation Value and NIL payment to Operational Creditors in case the Liquidation Value is NIL, does not contravene the provisions of Section 30(2)(b) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Apex Court used its authority under Article 142 to allow the CIRP proceedings to be withdrawn and to adjudicate all outstanding issues between the parties in the greater interest of the homebuyers.
The Corporate Debtor would carry on construction and out of total saleable construction 32% will be of landowner and remaining 68% will be of the Corporate Debtor.
Since a specific limitation period for filing such an appeal is clearly mentioned, Section 17 of the Limitation Act could not be applied here.
When a Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom, it has to be presumed that the approval was given to a viable and feasible plan. Once approved, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom.
The court fined the suspended director of the corporate debtor (the applicant) Rs. 1 lakh for starting several legal actions to obtain the same remedy and wasting valuable judicial time.
A change in the composition of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the Corporate Debtor will affect its previous decision and the same will be binding on the newly included members of CoC.
The recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Safire Technologies (Supra) simply expands this explanation to Section 61 of the IBC and discards the contentions that the time period for the limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge of the order.
join For Updates