A change in the composition of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the Corporate Debtor will affect its previous decision and the same will be binding on the newly included members of CoC.
Category: Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016
Reverse CIRP and its Modus Operandi- An Extraneous concept to IBC Regime
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.
Criminal Liability in Subvention Scheme !!!
The criminal liabilities that may be invoked in a subvention scheme may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Rejection of ‘Date of Knowledge’ Argument: Supreme Court
The recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Safire Technologies (Supra) simply expands this explanation to Section 61 of the IBC and discards the contentions that the time period for the limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge of the order.
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.
Why are Homebuyers choosing NCLT over RERA?
Buyers say that RERA orders are not getting implemented and this is forcing them to approach NCLT and there is a need to check abuse and maximize the value of assets.
Eligibility of Resolution Applicant: Section 29A of IBC Code, 2016
Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has emerged as one of the key aspects in determining the Eligibility of the Potential Resolution Applicants in a tedious attempt to save the company in question under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Mobilization Advance is Financial Debt or Operational Debt?
Mobilization Advance is an Operational Debt and not a Financial Debt referring to the abovementioned Supreme Court Judgement.
Treatment of MSME Insolvency under IBC
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.
Parties other than those who triggered CIRP cannot be creditors
There is no such provision to implead creditors other than the ones which triggered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
Personal Guarantor under section 95 is exempted from section 10A of IBC, 2016
Section 10A proceedings are not applicable against the Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Supreme Court holds that section 7(5) Of IBC is discretionary
VIPL sought for a stay on the proceedings before the NCLT on the pretext of pendency of proceeding before the Supreme Court and resultantly, VIPL was unable to realize a substantial sum of Rs. 1730 crores which would enable the Appellant to clear the debt towards Axis Bank.
Apex Court redefines the ambit of the definition of a consumer with reference to commercial transactions
It was held that the Consumer Complaint of the appellant is not maintainable as the appellant is not a consumer as per section 2(1) d of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Tax authorities can’t issue notice to freeze accounts of the company during liquidation: NCLAT
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 mandatory to initiate CIRP under Section 9, NCLAT
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.
join For Updates