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.
Despite the fact that such relief should not have existed, the NCLAT instead attempted an “experiment” to adopt the strange idea of Reverse CIRP, which has no precedent in the Code.
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.
CIRP is a process to determine the capability of repayment of the defaulted corporate. For this purpose, IRPs are appointed. They evaluate the assets and liabilities to determine the capability of repayment.
The constitution of COC for one project instead of all is against the regular practice of CIRP. In the past two years, the NCLAT has passed similar orders in various cases and called them Reverse CIRP.
Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has emerged as one of the key aspects in determining the Eligibility of the Potential Resolution Applicants in a tedious attempt to save the company in question under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
The COVID-19 crisis has caused distress and failure in the MSME sector. The insolvency law since its enactment in 2016 has been amended several times in order to protect the interest of MSMEs as well as the future and growth of the Country.
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.
Hon’ble Supreme court declared that the provisions of IBC (Code) to be interpreted liberally to expand the objective of the Statute.
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.
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.
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.
join For Updates