The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application and held that it is a case of collusive Application whereby the Corporate Debtor is trying to seek benefits of Moratorium u/s 14 of the IBC and other advantages in accordance with other provisions of IBC 2016.
If the Application filed under Section 7 meets all the requirements, then also the Adjudicating Authority has to exercise discretion carefully to prevent and protect the Corporate Debtor from being dragged into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process mala fide.
In the present case, the NCLAT held that the Appellants were acting as investors, the money they gave to the Respondents was in the nature of a loan, satisfying the condition of amount “disbursed against consideration for time value of money,” and the committed returns were in the nature of “interest.”
Any person aggrieved by the decision of NCLT, or is not satisfied with the decision or if there is any mistake or error on part of NCLT then such a person can appeal NCLAT u/s 61 of IBC for its corrections and proper disposal of judgement/order.
This isn’t the first time the NCLAT has ruled that, IBC rules take precedence over other laws, such as the attachment of corporate debtor’s assets under the PMLA.
“Supreme Court is playing with the emotion of homebuyers” an unhappy homebuyer of Jaypee Wishtown said after the Superme Courts’s order on Jaypee Infratech.
The limitation period cannot be extended, given the statutory provision under Section 19 of the Limitation Act as the Corporate Debtor has made part payment after expiration of the period of limitation.
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
A judgement has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the powers of the NCLT under the IBC do not extend to adjudicating disputes relating to quasi- judicial or statutory authorities.
All the struck–off companies can approach NCLT under section 252 of the company act for the revival of the struck-off company against the order of ROC.
The provisions Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 specifically provides for treatment for all sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund. Further, in the present scenario there is much debate on the admissibility of the claim of EPFO under Sections 7Q and 14B for which … Continue reading “Treatment and Priority of EPFO dues under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”)”
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.
There is no specific threshold limit for the NCLT Delhi under the IBC 2016. The IBC provides that a financial creditor, operational creditor, or the corporate debtor itself can initiate the insolvency resolution process with the NCLT.
Main reasons for the delay is the spate of litigations by the promoters. Once the CIRP order is passed, the promoters get into the action with the sole objective of getting back the company at a cheaper price.
An application filed to initiate CIRP against the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the IBC Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited.
join For Updates