If the corporate debtor’s resolution plan was authorised and declared binding on the corporate debtor and its workers, members, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders under Section 31 of the Code, criminal proceedings under Section 138 will continue.
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.
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
The new framework allows Creditors to continue recovery process with Personal Guarantor after completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
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.
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.
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The Apex Court used its authority under Article 142 to allow the CIRP proceedings to be withdrawn and to adjudicate all outstanding issues between the parties in the greater interest of the homebuyers.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 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.
Section 10A proceedings are not applicable against the Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
VIPL sought for a stay on the proceedings before the NCLT on the pretext of pendency of proceeding before the Supreme Court and resultantly, VIPL was unable to realize a substantial sum of Rs. 1730 crores which would enable the Appellant to clear the debt towards Axis Bank.
The actions of the CoC by not accepting the Applicant’s Resolution Plan were void in nature and held that the Applicant must be given a fresh opportunity to participate in the process of submission of the Resolution Plan.
join For Updates