Personal Guarantor under section 95 is exempted from section 10A of IBC, 2016
Section 10A proceedings are not applicable against the Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Section 10A proceedings are not applicable against the Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A banker’s certificate is not mandatorily required for an operational creditor to begin Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The interest component can include in the principal debt to acquire a minimum threshold limit i.e., 1 crore if delayed payment stipulated in the agreement or invoice.
The actions of the CoC by not accepting the Applicant’s Resolution Plan were void in nature and held that the Applicant must be given a fresh opportunity to participate in the process of submission of the Resolution Plan.
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.
To provide a relief to MSME and to offer them some respite from this pandemic, the process of pre-packaged insolvency resolution was introduced. This PIRP was introduced by way of ordinance dated 04.04.2021 by the Ministry of Law and Justice.
the interest of the allottees is protected and the survival of real estate companies and completion of projects is ensured. As the amendment in the IBC has brought much needed clarity and provided the much-needed right to the home buyers/allottee.
The NCLAT ruling, on the other hand, may present some difficulties for banks that have extended bank guarantees. When the IBC imposes a moratorium period, recouping funds paid under bank guarantees from a corporate debtor may be difficult.
The Supreme Court clarified the code’s object while keeping legislative intent in mind. The court, through this judgement, has struck a balance between creditors’ rights and debtor companies’ remedies.
The NCLAT, in its Order dated 23.04.2019, ruled that GMSPL’s (Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd.) Resolution Plan is better compared to the other Applicants. However, NCLAT noted that the parties’ claims that are not covered in the Resolution Plan may be raised before the relevant forums.
The Adjudicating Authorities have affirmed the IBC’s goals through a series of judgments and further proved its prevalence over the other laws of land.
Insolvency Professionals eligible to be appointed as Liquidator alongside written consent form within 10 days of the direction issued, and upon receipt of the proposal, the order of appointment of Liquidator is passed.
IBC is economic legislation and that when it comes to economic legislation, flexibility should be given to the legislature because no economic law can be fool proof at its inception.
IBC was introduced to reorganise, restructure or to consolidate the existing framework into a single law for the purpose of Insolvency and Bankruptcy.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) is the preeminent dynamic body in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Choices with respect to the organization of the corporate borrower are taken at the gatherings of the Committee, in light of a dominant part vote of the individuals.