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.

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.

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 an Operational Debt and not a Financial Debt referring to the abovementioned Supreme Court Judgement.

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.

There is no such provision to implead creditors other than the ones which triggered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Section 10A proceedings are not applicable against the Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

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.

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.

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 minimum threshold limit mentioned under section 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can include both principal and interest amount. The invoices/bills raised by the Operational Creditor clearly mentioned that the interest will be charged @18% after the due date of the bill.

Directing the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter, the apex court said that the NCLAT must have notified the bank (Financial Creditor) before closing the CIRP initiated by the NCLT.

In the present case, debt pertaining to unpaid license fee was fully covered within the meaning of ‘operation debt’ under Section 5(21), and the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in holding that the debt claimed by the Operational Creditor is not an ‘operational debt’

As per proviso to Section 12 of the IBC, the insolvency resolution process shall mandatorily be completed within a period of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date, including any extension of the period of CIRP granted under Section 12 of the IBC.