The NCLAT ruling, on the other hand, may present some difficulties for banks that have extended bank guarantees. When the IBC imposes a moratorium period, recouping funds paid under bank guarantees from a corporate debtor may be difficult.

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.

A dispute arose after the completion of the liquidation proceeding and whether the dispute relates to special legislation, such as the Copyright Act, where civil courts have been granted exclusive jurisdiction.

The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application and held that it is a case of collusive Application whereby the Corporate Debtor is trying to seek benefits of Moratorium u/s 14 of the IBC and other advantages in accordance with other provisions of IBC 2016.

If the Application filed under Section 7 meets all the requirements, then also the Adjudicating Authority has to exercise discretion carefully to prevent and protect the Corporate Debtor from being dragged into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process mala fide.

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.

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.

In the present case, the NCLAT held that the Appellants were acting as investors, the money they gave to the Respondents was in the nature of a loan, satisfying the condition of amount “disbursed against consideration for time value of money,” and the committed returns were in the nature of “interest.”

Since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. “The right to sue”, therefore, accrues when a default occurs.

Under Section 7 of the IBC, this amendment allowed the home buyer to initiate insolvency proceedings against defaulting Promoters. However, the Insolvency Amendment 2018 was challenged in the Supreme Court of India by approximately 200 realtors.

According to the provisions of the agreement, if possession is not handed over on time, the Promoter is obligated to pay or compensate the Complainant/allottee for loss of rent.

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.

Gujarat High Court dismissed Essar Steel’s petition and refused to grant any of the reliefs sought by Essar Steel. The Gujarat High Court moved quickly and efficiently, and the order was issued within 10 working days of Essar Steel’s filing of the case.

The Supreme Court did not agree to the payment of amounts deposited by the promoter to homebuyers on the grounds that it would be preferential payment to one class of creditors.

Insolvency Professionals eligible to be appointed as Liquidator alongside written consent form within 10 days of the direction issued, and upon receipt of the proposal, the order of appointment of Liquidator is passed.