NCLAT said that if there was deficiency in pleading, the same could be corrected by giving opportunity before this Appellate Tribunal to amend the pleadings. In Appeal naturally pleadings could be by filing Application and reply supported by documents.
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.
The issue of existence of a dispute when the application under Section 9 of IBC is filed before the Adjudicating Authority. These actions raise doubt regarding the veracity of the dispute and its pre-existence.
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.
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
Once the resolution plan is approved and is implemented under IBC, no issue can be raised at a later stage when resolution Process Costs and fees of the Resolution Professional.
Claims towards rent of leasehold property do not fall within the definition of the operational debt in terms of Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
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.
Mobilization Advance is an Operational Debt and not a Financial Debt referring to the abovementioned Supreme Court Judgement.
More than 5 Lakh homebuyers are struck in the projects which are either stalled for multiple years or has been abandoned. The builder either don’t have money or intention to start construction on such products.
In this article we will precisely discuss about the conduct of insolvency process by corporate debtor who is also called as corporate applicant.
join For Updates