Virtual Currencies Platform undergoing Insolvency in the Indian Scenario
The primary challenge to VC regulation is the uncertainty regarding their very nature– whether they can be considered goods, commodities, currencies, or property.
The primary challenge to VC regulation is the uncertainty regarding their very nature– whether they can be considered goods, commodities, currencies, or property.
A key element that differentiates the IBC from previous legislation governing corporate insolvency is the distribution waterfall in the event of liquidation.
Liquidator lacks the authority to reject or modify already admitted claims if he receives any new information. Only the Adjudicating Authority may be contacted by the Liquidator to request adjustment of the admitted claims.
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”.
The adoption of the Model Law will help in the ease of doing business and significantly increase the inflow of FDI into India by way of cross-border mergers and acquisitions.
A debt arising from an advance payment given to a corporate debtor for the supply of goods or services would be deemed an operational debt.
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.
The Successful Resolution Applicant requested Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as MIDC) for a new water connection to revive the operations at the plant of the Corporate Debtor.
A person to whom a debt has been properly assigned or transferred is also included in the definition of “Financial Creditor” under Section 5(7) of the IBC.
The constitution of COC for one project instead of all is against the regular practice of CIRP. In the past two years, the NCLAT has passed similar orders in various cases and called them Reverse CIRP.
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.
In the present case, debt pertaining to unpaid license fee was fully covered within the meaning of ‘operation debt’ under Section 5(21), and the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in holding that the debt claimed by the Operational Creditor is not an ‘operational debt’
The interest component can include in the principal debt to acquire a minimum threshold limit i.e., 1 crore if delayed payment stipulated in the agreement or invoice.
The Supreme Court overturn decision of the a 5-Judge Bench order of the NCLAT that balance sheet entries do not amount to the acknowledgment of a debt and thus do not extend limitation under Section 18.