The Apex Court used its authority under Article 142 to allow the CIRP proceedings to be withdrawn and to adjudicate all outstanding issues between the parties in the greater interest of the homebuyers.
A recently evolved notion of co-relation of Principal amount and interest levied on it, for the purpose of Section 5(8) of the code and its implication in the application filed under Section 7.
A quest for equality of opportunity for women seeking Permanent Commissions in the Indian Army forms the rationale of the instant case.
The institution or continuation of a proceeding of dishonour of cheque against company under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 fall within the ambit of moratorium provision of the IBC.
The Bangalore Sales Corporation v Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd., the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kochi Bench, comprised of Shri. P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri. Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), held that an unregistered Partnership Firm cannot institute insolvency proceedings under IBC.
A person to whom a debt has been properly assigned or transferred is also included in the definition of “Financial Creditor” under Section 5(7) of the IBC.
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.
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 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.
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.
The apex court held that the Code isn’t a machinery for recovery though its usage in several perspectives still be within the nature of a recovery system.
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.
join For Updates