The fast track process which can be initiated by a creditor or the corporate debtor itself cuts down the time taken to complete an insolvency resolution to almost half as compared to the regular process under the IBC.
the advance copy of the Application for initiating CIRP under Section 7, Section 9, or Section 10 of IBC, 2016 needs to be served to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India.
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.
It is evident upon reading Section 33(5) that this clause merely forbids the filing of a lawsuit or other legal action against the Corporate Debtor. It in no way precludes the filing of a lawsuit or starting another legal action against a ship or vessel owned by the corporate debtor.
The IBC would prevail over The Customs Act, to the extent that once the moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC, as the case may be, the respondent authority has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of custom duty and other levies.
A key element that differentiates the IBC from previous legislation governing corporate insolvency is the distribution waterfall in the event of liquidation.
interim finance can be raised by the resolution professional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The resolution professional is authorized to raise interim finance after obtaining approval from the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
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.
The adoption of the Model Law will help in the ease of doing business and significantly increase the inflow of FDI into India by way of cross-border mergers and acquisitions.
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 Operational Creditors are only entitled for minimum of the Liquidation Value and NIL payment to Operational Creditors in case the Liquidation Value is NIL, does not contravene the provisions of Section 30(2)(b) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Apex Court used its authority under Article 142 to allow the CIRP proceedings to be withdrawn and to adjudicate all outstanding issues between the parties in the greater interest of the homebuyers.
A debt arising from an advance payment given to a corporate debtor for the supply of goods or services would be deemed an operational debt.
Since a specific limitation period for filing such an appeal is clearly mentioned, Section 17 of the Limitation Act could not be applied here.
The resolution professional (RP), appointed under the Code, is at the heart of these endeavors and has the mandate to complete this process in a time-bound manner.
join For Updates