Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has emerged as one of the key aspects in determining the Eligibility of the Potential Resolution Applicants in a tedious attempt to save the company in question under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Mobilization Advance is an Operational Debt and not a Financial Debt referring to the abovementioned Supreme Court Judgement.
Section 10A proceedings are not applicable against the Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Directing the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter, the apex court said that the NCLAT must have notified the bank (Financial Creditor) before closing the CIRP initiated by the NCLT.
the Resolution Plan in question is in violation of section 30(2) (a) of the IBC. The NCLAT subsequently modified the Resolution Plan to include this claim in accordance with the law.
Delhi-based bench of NCLT passed an order by allowing a plea filed by the Residents Association for breach clauses of the agreement between the builder and the association, terming it as default.
The process is not too tedious and is generally accepted by the court, thus, helping the parties to resolve disputes in a time bound manner.
the interest of the allottees is protected and the survival of real estate companies and completion of projects is ensured. As the amendment in the IBC has brought much needed clarity and provided the much-needed right to the home buyers/allottee.
The choice between ‘arbitration’ and ‘litigation’ is not one that can be made in a vacuum. Arbitration can and should be a flexible and efficient procedure for adjudicating disputes.
The Liquidator has a fiduciary responsibility with the Company and its creditors. The major goal of choosing a Liquidator is to resurrect a failing firm and operate professionally.
The Adjudicating Authority cannot allow or approve the application regarding modifications or withdrawals of CoC-approved Resolution Plans once the plan has been submitted before NCLT.
IBBI changed the liquidation procedure to be of a fixed duration. The new rules require the process to be completed within one year of its inception.
Different forums provide for different reliefs and one must be cautious enough before choosing an appropriate forum. Before choosing the appropriate forum, points to be analyzed are type of violation by the builder, what relief is prayed for, urgency, repetitive nature, financial condition of the builder, status of other projects, etc.
Claims that do not form part of the resolution plan will be extinguished on the date of the adjudicating authority’s acceptance of the resolution plan. This ruling has reaffirmed the IBC’s goal, which is for the Corporate Debtor to start over with a clean slate based on the resolution plan.
Supreme Court’s decision in Maharashtra Seamless Limited shows that the commercial wisdom of the CoC will be given top priority when deciding on the feasibility and viability of the resolution plan.
join For Updates