Asset attachment by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is critical in combating money laundering and criminal activities.
There is no specific threshold limit for the NCLT Delhi under the IBC 2016. The IBC provides that a financial creditor, operational creditor, or the corporate debtor itself can initiate the insolvency resolution process with the NCLT.
CIRP proceedings under section 7 can be initiated against corporate debtors who are co-borrowers but there can be no double recovery of the same amount from both.
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.
The lease premium and rent given to the Corporate Debtor are not included in Section 14(1)(D) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
An application filed to initiate CIRP against the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the IBC Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited.
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.
Case of “Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG shipyard vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in which it was held that the IBC provisions will prevail over the provisions laid down in the “Customs Act, 1962” and also set aside the order of the NCLAT”.
In the recent case given by the retired Hon’ble Supreme court Judge CJI Ramana. He said that in case of any conflict, the IBC will override the Customs Acts.
The Apex Court used its authority under Article 142 to allow the CIRP proceedings to be withdrawn and to adjudicate all outstanding issues between the parties in the greater interest of the homebuyers.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 debt arising from an advance payment given to a corporate debtor for the supply of goods or services would be deemed an operational debt.
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.
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.
join For Updates