Calcutta High Courts held that moratorium under Section 14 of IBC also includes criminal proceedings for cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thus parallel proceedings against a corporate debtor cannot be allowed.
At the initiation of CIRP when a public notice is issued under Section 15, claims of creditors are invited; but in some scenarios in real estate cases, homebuyers are often unable to take note of the public announcement of CIRP owing to different factors.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (for short “I&B Code”), enacted in 2016, marked a significant reform in India’s economic landscape by streamlining the insolvency resolution process and providing a balanced framework.
Asset attachment by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is critical in combating money laundering and criminal activities.
The legal authority to issue a non-bailable warrant if it is required to assure or force the appearance of the accused in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
interim finance can be raised by the resolution professional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The resolution professional is authorized to raise interim finance after obtaining approval from the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
The adoption of the Model Law will help in the ease of doing business and significantly increase the inflow of FDI into India by way of cross-border mergers and acquisitions.
Homebuyers could only engage in the IBC procedure as a class of financial creditor. Individual homebuyer rights were absorbed by homebuyer rights as a class.
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.
The COVID-19 crisis has caused distress and failure in the MSME sector. The insolvency law since its enactment in 2016 has been amended several times in order to protect the interest of MSMEs as well as the future and growth of the Country.
Article 137 is having a wider scope than Article 1 of the Limitation Act and is not applicable to the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Article 1 is also not applicable to the petition filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
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.
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 Adjudicating Authorities have affirmed the IBC’s goals through a series of judgments and further proved its prevalence over the other laws of land.
The Supreme Court of India has cleared the way for lenders to file insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors of stressed companies, who are typically promoters.
join For Updates