NCLAT said that if there was deficiency in pleading, the same could be corrected by giving opportunity before this Appellate Tribunal to amend the pleadings. In Appeal naturally pleadings could be by filing Application and reply supported by documents.
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.
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.
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.
This judgement is a step in the right direction because it recognizes the authority of a non-petitioning creditor to request for a transfer of the winding up proceedings. It assures that A creditor is not deprived of their right just because they didn’t participate in the initial winding up procedure against corporate debtor.
CA. Venkata Siva Kumar, the petitioner, is a chartered accountant who has registered as an IP with the IBBI. In his writ petition, he claimed that the IBBI Regulations, 2016 are in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and should be overturned.
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.
SBI initiated proceedings against Veesons under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), demanding an outstanding amount of approximately INR 61 crores as Veesons did not pay its debts on time.
The Supreme Court of India issued its first comprehensive ruling on the operation and functioning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the case of Innoventive Industries Limited vs ICICI Bank Limited.
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.
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.
join For Updates