Search Results for: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

NCLT’s discretion while admitting Section 7 Applications– A Vidarbha Judgement Outlook

An application filed to initiate CIRP against the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the IBC Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited.

NIL payment to OC’s if Liquidation Value is NIL, doesn’t contravene the provisions of S. 30(2)(b) of IBC, 2016: NCLAT, New Delhi

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.

Judges & Social Media: Managing the Risks

Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence explains the evidentiary value that social media posts carry. Certainly, there are advantages and good policy reasons for accessing social media evidence used in criminal proceedings.

An alien concept to the IBC regime is reverse CIRP

Despite the fact that such relief should not have existed, the NCLAT instead attempted an “experiment” to adopt the strange idea of Reverse CIRP, which has no precedent in the Code.

IBC Does Not Prohibit an Assignee from Continuing Pending Section 7 Proceedings: Judgement by NCLAT Delhi

A person to whom a debt has been properly assigned or transferred is also included in the definition of “Financial Creditor” under Section 5(7) of the IBC.

Breach of the settlement agreement is not a ground to invoke CIRP

Hon’ble NCLT Delhi held that the breach of the Settlement Agreement by the parties does not fall within the ambit of Operational Debt provided under Section 5(21) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Debts incurred during CIRP are also a part of IRP costs, says NCLAT

the Resolution Plan in question is in violation of section 30(2) (a) of the IBC. The NCLAT subsequently modified the Resolution Plan to include this claim in accordance with the law.

Limitation is continuous in cases of Homebuyers

If a homebuyer failed to file his/her case then will his/her case will not be taken and his grievances won’t be solved? The answer to this question is “NO”! The reason here is that the limitation period in the case of a homebuyer is continuous in view of the non-handing over of the possession of the unit.

Possibility of extending the CIRP beyond the stipulated time of 330 days

The time specified for the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process is 330 days as has been laid by the legislature. The intention behind keeping process in a time bound manner is to guarantee relief to the already aggrieved creditors of the company.

Voluntary Liquidation

IBBI changed the liquidation procedure to be of a fixed duration. The new rules require the process to be completed within one year of its inception.

AA has limited power of judicial review if resolution plan is approved by CoC: SC

Supreme Court’s decision in Maharashtra Seamless Limited shows that the commercial wisdom of the CoC will be given top priority when deciding on the feasibility and viability of the resolution plan.

Is IBC unfair to Operational Creditors?

Homebuyers are now considered financial creditors, whereas operational creditors, who are from the business world, may have a better understanding of the industry but still lack those rights.

COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS (CoC) under IBC : FROM BEGINNING TO END

The Committee of Creditors (CoC) has complete wisdom and right to decide the fate of the company under CIRP. Lets understand all about Committee of Creditors under Insolvency Laws

Claims, not part of Resolution Plan, gets exhausted

No further legal action shall be permissible by creditor, whose claim has been rendered unsatisfied as per the resolution plan.

How NCLT through IBC can help homebuyers to get refund from defaulting Builders

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.