These two judgements would be of great importance because they have paved a way for the transfer of post-notice winding up petitions pending before the different High Courts.
The NCLAT held that CIRP against Real Estate Company shall be limited to Project concerned and will not affect other projects of the developers.
Earlier the allottees had an option of claiming refund of the entire amount. But under the reverse CIRP, the allottees will not be able to claim the refund.
Withdrawal of money by a Company director from the accounts of the company during the CIRP, the same will attract criminal proceedings against the Directors
This proactiveness has been further accelerated by the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Pioneer case.
Moratorium Period under section 14 of the code shall not apply upon such proceedings under the prevention of money laundering act.
If some other recovery proceedings are pending or the amount of claim is disputed before other tribunal or adjudicating body that won’t empower the adjudicating authority to reject the petition.
An application under section 7 filed by the Operational Creditor is barred due to pending Arbitration Proceedings as the on-going arbitration proceedings signifies the pre-existence of dispute
The regulator is planning to come out with a discussion paper on compliance with SEBI standards by listed companies undergoing insolvency resolution process.
The Apex Court used its authority under Article 142 to allow the CIRP proceedings to be withdrawn and to adjudicate all outstanding issues between the parties in the greater interest of the homebuyers.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 reviewing court can reverse the original decision or amend it as needed. With the passing of time, the judiciary has been paving the way for clearing the doubt regarding the power to review and recall.
An application filed to initiate CIRP against the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the IBC Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited.
The Supreme Court has made an attempt to shed light on this matter recently in K. Paramasivan v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. An appeal is preferred before the apex court under which the NCLAT decision is challenged.
In the recent case given by the retired Hon’ble Supreme court Judge CJI Ramana. He said that in case of any conflict, the IBC will override the Customs Acts.
The new framework allows Creditors to continue recovery process with Personal Guarantor after completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
join For Updates