The withdrawal of an application for CIRP by the applicant would not prevent any other financial creditor from taking recourse to a proceeding under IBC.
The reviewing court can reverse the original decision or amend it as needed. With the passing of time, the judiciary has been paving the way for clearing the doubt regarding the power to review and recall.
Main reasons for the delay is the spate of litigations by the promoters. Once the CIRP order is passed, the promoters get into the action with the sole objective of getting back the company at a cheaper price.
A key element that differentiates the IBC from previous legislation governing corporate insolvency is the distribution waterfall in the event of liquidation.
The Supreme Court has made an attempt to shed light on this matter recently in K. Paramasivan v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. An appeal is preferred before the apex court under which the NCLAT decision is challenged.
A debt arising from an advance payment given to a corporate debtor for the supply of goods or services would be deemed an operational debt.
The Corporate Debtor would carry on construction and out of total saleable construction 32% will be of landowner and remaining 68% will be of the Corporate Debtor.
The Successful Resolution Applicant requested Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as MIDC) for a new water connection to revive the operations at the plant of the Corporate Debtor.
The claims filed/to be submitted by the workers of the appellant must be decided upon and taken into consideration by the Liquidator even if RP has not submitted the claims towards the wages/salaries as part of CIRP costs.
When a Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom, it has to be presumed that the approval was given to a viable and feasible plan. Once approved, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom.
The code has helped the creditors to recover their amount from defunct companies and bring them back to their actual position. IBC was introduced so as to reduce India’s long-standing problem of NPAs.
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.
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.
The interest component can include in the principal debt to acquire a minimum threshold limit i.e., 1 crore if delayed payment stipulated in the agreement or invoice.
join For Updates