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.
In a recent decision, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma.
The provisions Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 specifically provides for treatment for all sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund
Interim Finance is defined under Section 5 (15) of the IBC, 2016 which means
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 brings in the concept of Interim Moratorium, which offers protection to individuals during the insolvency process.
Asset attachment by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is critical in combating money laundering and criminal activities.
CIRP proceedings under section 7 can be initiated against corporate debtors who are co-borrowers but there can be no double recovery of the same amount from both.
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.
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 claims filed/to be submitted by the workers of the appellant must be decided upon and taken into consideration by the Liquidator even if RP has not submitted the claims towards the wages/salaries as part of CIRP costs.
The withdrawal of an application for CIRP by the applicant would not prevent any other financial creditor from taking recourse to a proceeding under IBC.
The Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) mechanism have helped the MSMEs to a great extent in order to revive their operations as a going concern.
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.
The constitution of COC for one project instead of all is against the regular practice of CIRP. In the past two years, the NCLAT has passed similar orders in various cases and called them Reverse CIRP.
Section 10A proceedings are not applicable against the Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
join For Updates