NCLAT Chennai Bench: Tribunal Dismisses Review Application Seeking Recall of Order
In a recent decision, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma.
In a recent decision, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma.
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.
In a recent order given by the NCLAT, thousands of homebuyers have been given a fresh lease of life as the appellate body has ordered fresh round of …
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority i.e. National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) may prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
The directors of the suspended corporate debtor filed an appeal against the National Company Law Tribunal’s (“NCLT”) ruling that rejected their request to have a non-bailable warrant issued against them.
Liquidator lacks the authority to reject or modify already admitted claims if he receives any new information. Only the Adjudicating Authority may be contacted by the Liquidator to request adjustment of the admitted claims.
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.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the matter of M. K. Resely & Ors. Vs Union Bank of India has condoned a delay of 147 days in filing of appeal before NCLAT upon equity.
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.
The Corporate Debtor went into CIRP vide the Adjudicating Authority (AA) order dated 20.09.2019 and Mr. Hemant Mehta (Appellant) got appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
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 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.
Claim of the rental lease will be treated as operational debt under Section 5(21) of the code as per the decision given by the Hon’ble NCLAT.
The NCLAT had to decide whether the NCLT/CoC may provide resolution applicants repeated chances to alter their individual resolution plans and whether the CoC was authorised to entertain fresh or revised resolution plans without exhausting available bids.
Section 5(8)(f) Explanation makes it clear that any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing.