CA. Venkata Siva Kumar, the petitioner, is a chartered accountant who has registered as an IP with the IBBI. In his writ petition, he claimed that the IBBI Regulations, 2016 are in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and should be overturned.
Since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. “The right to sue”, therefore, accrues when a default occurs.
SBI initiated proceedings against Veesons under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), demanding an outstanding amount of approximately INR 61 crores as Veesons did not pay its debts on time.
The Supreme Court of India issued its first comprehensive ruling on the operation and functioning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the case of Innoventive Industries Limited vs ICICI Bank Limited.
The Supreme Court of India has cleared the way for lenders to file insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors of stressed companies, who are typically promoters.
The Supreme Court did not agree to the payment of amounts deposited by the promoter to homebuyers on the grounds that it would be preferential payment to one class of creditors.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) is the preeminent dynamic body in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Choices with respect to the organization of the corporate borrower are taken at the gatherings of the Committee, in light of a dominant part vote of the individuals.
The purpose of an information memorandum is to support ‘decision making’ and to make a better decision in a particular problem situation that might otherwise have made without the analysis.
Creditors who fails to the submit the claims with proof within 14 days can submit their claims within 90 days from the Insolvency Commencement date as per the amendment of Regulation 12(2).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest judgement dated February, 11 2021 declared that the proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution by a purchaser, seeking relief in respect to a real estate project cannot be entertained.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of NCLT, or is not satisfied with the decision or if there is any mistake or error on part of NCLT then such a person can appeal NCLAT u/s 61 of IBC for its corrections and proper disposal of judgement/order.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision is a watershed moment for homebuyers and allottees. A number of findings in the current judgment support this conclusion, including parallel remedies under RERA and the Consumer Protection Act.
NCLT and RERA have different functioning and approach to tackle cases of homebuyers, often homebuyers are confused on which remedy to choose.
Resolution applicants enter the CIRP and prepare “Resolution Plans,” which are effectively instruments for taking over a corporate debtor, paying its creditors’ debts, and completing its recovery and restructuring.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the applicant can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in respect of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
join For Updates