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 Resolution Plan in question is in violation of section 30(2) (a) of the IBC. The NCLAT subsequently modified the Resolution Plan to include this claim in accordance with the law.
The Adjudicating Authorities have been given discretionary powers under section 7(5)(a) of I&B Code, 2016. The Authorities are required to apply their mind and take into consideration all facts and circumstances.
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.
Section 7 of the Code permits a financial creditor to initiate a CIRP procedure against the guarantor being a corporate debtor in accordance with the default committed by the principal borrower.
Home buyers who have an order/decree/award for refund passed either by RERA or any consumer court or any court of law, can approach the NCLT under Section 7 of the Code for its default/non-payment, giving a new cause of action for the limitation period from the date the default occurred.
the interest of the allottees is protected and the survival of real estate companies and completion of projects is ensured. As the amendment in the IBC has brought much needed clarity and provided the much-needed right to the home buyers/allottee.
If the corporate debtor’s resolution plan was authorised and declared binding on the corporate debtor and its workers, members, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders under Section 31 of the Code, criminal proceedings under Section 138 will continue.
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 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.
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.
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.
Due to the outbreak of Second wave of Coronavirus, Assocham has requested the finance ministry to re-impose a moratorium on bringing debt-ridden firms to NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) until December 2021.
These two judgements would be of great importance because they have paved a way for the transfer of post-notice winding up petitions pending before the different High Courts.
join For Updates