In the present case, the NCLAT held that the Appellants were acting as investors, the money they gave to the Respondents was in the nature of a loan, satisfying the condition of amount “disbursed against consideration for time value of money,” and the committed returns were in the nature of “interest.”

Balance sheets can be considered as acknowledgment of debt, the judgment was delivered by a three-Judge Bench of Justice.

The IBC’s applicability to NBFCs is a welcome legislative effort, and the new rules have extended the RBI’s role in performing an NBFC’s CIRP.

Hon’ble SC clarified the position of the homebuyers similar to that of a “financial creditor” under the IBC, after this the homebuyers were at a par with banks and financial institutions.

“Supreme Court is playing with the emotion of homebuyers” an unhappy homebuyer of Jaypee Wishtown said after the Superme Courts’s order on Jaypee Infratech.

A perfect decision by the SC where the parties perform activities to avoid any commercial transactions which are collusive in nature or where financial creditor escape the bar under Section 21(2) first proviso of the IBC.

According to the various resources that central government is planning to increase the number of NCLT benches from 11 to 24.

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) were established due to the notification w.e.f. June 01, 2016, published by Ministry of corporate affairs.

The NCLT ordered appointment of IRP even though only 50% voting was in favor of the appointment however the requirement is 66% as per the IBC laws.