Lease Premium & Lease Rent not included in Explanation to Section 14(1)(D) of the IBC, 2016
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.
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.
The government has introduced the pre-packaged insolvency resolution process (PPIRP) for MSMEs, which allows them to initiate an insolvency process with the approval of two-thirds of their creditors.
Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence explains the evidentiary value that social media posts carry. Certainly, there are advantages and good policy reasons for accessing social media evidence used in criminal proceedings.
The claims filed/to be submitted by the workers of the appellant must be decided upon and taken into consideration by the Liquidator even if RP has not submitted the claims towards the wages/salaries as part of CIRP costs.
The Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) mechanism have helped the MSMEs to a great extent in order to revive their operations as a going concern.
The institution or continuation of a proceeding of dishonour of cheque against company under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 fall within the ambit of moratorium provision of the IBC.
Homebuyers could only engage in the IBC procedure as a class of financial creditor. Individual homebuyer rights were absorbed by homebuyer rights as a class.
The code has helped the creditors to recover their amount from defunct companies and bring them back to their actual position. IBC was introduced so as to reduce India’s long-standing problem of NPAs.
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).
The COVID-19 crisis has caused distress and failure in the MSME sector. The insolvency law since its enactment in 2016 has been amended several times in order to protect the interest of MSMEs as well as the future and growth of the Country.
NCLT held that the “interest” component alone cannot be claimed or pursued, in absence of the debt, to trigger a CIRP against the corporate Debtor. Further, the application pursued realization of the interest amount alone is against the intent of the IBC, 2016.
The allottees are left helpless when the developers stands either insolvent or incapable of delivering the possession even after passage of years beyond the date of delivery.
The enforcement proceedings for the foreign award (under S. 47-48) are the last and final stage where the debtor can resist the award from becoming binding/ enforceable for grounds listed under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act.
The apex court held that the Code isn’t a machinery for recovery though its usage in several perspectives still be within the nature of a recovery system.
The Code was enacted in 2016 to consolidate and amend the laws governing corporate reorganization and insolvency resolution for corporations, partnerships, and individuals.