All About- Moratorium and its relevance under IBC
The term Moratorium is nowhere defined in the Code, however, the term in basic parlance means, ”a stopping of activity for an agreed amount of time”.
The term Moratorium is nowhere defined in the Code, however, the term in basic parlance means, ”a stopping of activity for an agreed amount of time”.
As per the settled law there is no law or provision which states that either the Adjudicating or the Appellate Authority has the powers to question the resolution plan approved by the COC until and unless the same is barred by some irregularity.
A pre-existing dispute towards interest on the delayed payments before the issuance of the demand notice and that the alleged claim amount towards interest on loan alone, cannot be termed as an “Operational Debt”.
A claim was made in respect of the non-payment of pending salary and other settlement benefits such as leave encashment, Leave Travel Allowance, and bonus.
The matter is that in a situation where the Applicant is unable to prove the amount advanced as loan without proper documentations, such loan amount would not meet the requirements of a “Financial Debt”.
NCLAT, New Delhi Bench has held that claims towards rent of leasehold property do not fall within the definition of the operational debt under IBC.
There is a reaffirmation that the moratorium granted by the Court does not cover pending criminal litigation.
The Appellants cannot be permitted to pursue alternative remedy of suit/arbitration proceeding even if pending as Resolution Plan is binding on all the stakeholders.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on Oct 25, 2019, stayed the insolvency proceedings on the grounds that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for damages.
Claims towards rent of leasehold property do not fall within the definition of the operational debt in terms of Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Alternatives that an individual home buyer has in cases when the priority is refund and how they can proceed before NCLT or in other words exploit a long standing loophole.
This article aims to caution and summarize the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process with respect to buyers seeking revival and completion of Project.
The recovery rate has increased almost three times i.e. from 26.5% in 2018 to 71.6% in 2019 and the time taken for recovery improved from 4.3 years to 1.6 years within a short span of one year.
Money matters are a sensitive issue for everyone involved in the business as nobody would want to leave or lose their hard-earned money like that.
The manner of recovery of interest, penalty and compensation and the same is to be carried out in the manner provided in Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1967 and the rules made there under.