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.
NCLT clarified many controversial legal issues surrounding telecom spectrum, including whether it could be subjected to IBC proceedings whether the bankrupt telcos could sell spectrum rights allotted to them as part of the IBC resolution process.
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.
The NCLAT held that CIRP against Real Estate Company shall be limited to Project concerned and will not affect other projects of the developers.
The period of lockdown imposed by the Central Government in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak shall not be counted for the purposes of the time-line for any activity that could not be completed due to such lockdown.
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.
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.
The NCLAT has affirmed that a request for the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(CIRP) under sections 7 and 9.
join For Updates