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.
SBI initiated proceedings against Veesons under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), demanding an outstanding amount of approximately INR 61 crores as Veesons did not pay its debts on time.
IBC was introduced to reorganise, restructure or to consolidate the existing framework into a single law for the purpose of Insolvency and Bankruptcy.
A resolution plan under Regulation 37, shall provide for the measures, for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor for maximization of value of its assets.
Hon’ble SC clarified the position of the homebuyers similar to that of a “financial creditor” under the IBC, after this the homebuyers were at a par with banks and financial institutions.
The reason for stalling of a project can be one or many but the real objective for a homebuyer is to get the best possible remedy which protects the interest of all homebuyers of such a project.
It is advisable to the creditors to make a plea of initiating Group Insolvency while filing an application for initiation of CIRP against a corporate debtor.
Filing Claim under IBC- It becomes very important to understand why every creditor should file their claims?
Cheque bouncing is also the default in making payment of debt, and petition under IBC laws may be admitted
The rationale of the Ordinance is certainly to ensure that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 lives up to its preamble that is – maximization of value of assets. The newly inserted Section 10A certainly brings about a balance of interest between creditors and debtors.
The term Moratorium is nowhere defined in the Code, however, the term in basic parlance means, ”a stopping of activity for an agreed amount of time”.
Whether the delay in delivering possession is due to the Corporate Debtor & in case the delay is not due to the Corporate Debtor, but force majeure, it cannot be alleged that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in delivering the possession.
A pre-existing dispute towards interest on the delayed payments before the issuance of the demand notice and that the alleged claim amount towards interest on loan alone, cannot be termed as an “Operational Debt”.
A notice of dispute to a claim under the IBC (Section 9), 2016 is not admissible if made over a telephonic communication and not supported by phone records.
NCLAT, New Delhi Bench has held that claims towards rent of leasehold property do not fall within the definition of the operational debt under IBC.
join For Updates