NCLAT Upholds Denial of Resolution Plan Access to Resigned Director in Corporate Insolvency Proceedings
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of two appeals and observed that an individual who has resigned from the board of a corporate debtor prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is not entitled to receive the Resolution Plan or participate in proceedings, as they do not qualify as a suspended director under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This reinforces that the rights to access information are limited to current participants in the resolution process.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-upholds-denial-of-resolution-plan-access-to-resigned-director-in-corporate-insolvency-proceedi
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of two appeals and observed that an individual who has resigned from the board of a corporate debtor prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is not entitled to receive the Resolution Plan or participate in proceedings, as they do not qualify as a suspended director under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This reinforces that the rights to access information are limited to current participants in the resolution process.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-upholds-denial-of-resolution-plan-access-to-resigned-director-in-corporate-insolvency-proceedi
REEDLAW
NCLAT Upholds Denial of Resolution Plan Access to Resigned Director in Corporate Insolvency Proceedings
The NCLAT upheld the denial of access to the Resolution Plan for a resigned director in the context of corporate insolvency proceedings.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr.…
High Court Upholds IBBI's Jurisdiction to Investigate Allegations Against the Insolvency Professional
The Delhi High Court Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula reviewed a petition and determined that the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI had jurisdiction to proceed against the Petitioner despite objections regarding the timeliness of the complaint, as allegations of procedural irregularities in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process could constitute ongoing causes of action, thus warranting further investigation regardless of the complainant's status as an "aggrieved party".
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/high-court-upholds-ibbi-s-jurisdiction-to-investigate-allegations-against-the-insolvency-professiona
The Delhi High Court Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula reviewed a petition and determined that the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI had jurisdiction to proceed against the Petitioner despite objections regarding the timeliness of the complaint, as allegations of procedural irregularities in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process could constitute ongoing causes of action, thus warranting further investigation regardless of the complainant's status as an "aggrieved party".
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/high-court-upholds-ibbi-s-jurisdiction-to-investigate-allegations-against-the-insolvency-professiona
REEDLAW
High Court Upholds IBBI's Jurisdiction to Investigate Allegations Against the Insolvency Professional
The Delhi High Court upheld the IBBI's jurisdiction to investigate allegations against the insolvency professional in its recent order.The Delhi High Court Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula reviewed a petition and determined that the Disciplinary…
Leasehold rights must be legally renewed and that mere applications for renewal do not automatically grant rights
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of appeals and observed that leasehold rights must be legally renewed and that mere applications for renewal do not automatically grant rights; consequently, expired leases cannot be claimed as assets under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code if statutory requirements, such as salami payment, are not fulfilled. This ruling affirms the importance of adhering to legal formalities for lease renewals to establish rightful possession during insolvency proceedings.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/leasehold-rights-must-be-legally-renewed-and-that-mere-applications-for-renewal-do-not-automatically
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of appeals and observed that leasehold rights must be legally renewed and that mere applications for renewal do not automatically grant rights; consequently, expired leases cannot be claimed as assets under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code if statutory requirements, such as salami payment, are not fulfilled. This ruling affirms the importance of adhering to legal formalities for lease renewals to establish rightful possession during insolvency proceedings.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/leasehold-rights-must-be-legally-renewed-and-that-mere-applications-for-renewal-do-not-automatically
REEDLAW
Leasehold rights must be legally renewed and that mere applications for renewal do not automatically grant rights
NCLAT upheld the Corporate Debtor's valid leasehold rights, ruling that lease renewals must meet statutory requirements and cannot be assumed automatically.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson)…
High Court Invalidates Post-Approval Reassessment, Affirming Binding Nature of Resolution Plans under the IBC
The Delhi High Court division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja reviewed a petition and observed that reassessment actions taken by the Income Tax Department post-approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are invalid, as the approved plan binds all stakeholders, extinguishing any claims not lodged prior to its approval. The Division Bench further noted that this reinforces the principle that the legal obligations of the corporate debtor are resolved upon the plan’s approval, thereby preventing subsequent reassessment proceedings.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/high-court-invalidates-post-approval-reassessment-affirming-binding-nature-of-resolution-plans-unde
The Delhi High Court division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja reviewed a petition and observed that reassessment actions taken by the Income Tax Department post-approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are invalid, as the approved plan binds all stakeholders, extinguishing any claims not lodged prior to its approval. The Division Bench further noted that this reinforces the principle that the legal obligations of the corporate debtor are resolved upon the plan’s approval, thereby preventing subsequent reassessment proceedings.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/high-court-invalidates-post-approval-reassessment-affirming-binding-nature-of-resolution-plans-unde
REEDLAW
High Court Invalidates Post-Approval Reassessment, Affirming Binding Nature of Resolution Plans under the IBC
The High Court invalidated the post-approval reassessment, affirming the binding nature of Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.The Delhi High Court division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja reviewed a petition…
NCLAT Affirms That Interest Cannot Be Considered Part of Operational Debt Under the IBC
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed an appeal and observed that the interest claims could not be included as part of operational debt under the IBC, reinforcing that such claims must be supported by a valid agreement between the parties. Additionally, it emphasized the importance of establishing pre-existing disputes to invalidate the operational creditor's application.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-affirms-that-interest-cannot-be-considered-part-of-operational-debt-under-the-ibc
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed an appeal and observed that the interest claims could not be included as part of operational debt under the IBC, reinforcing that such claims must be supported by a valid agreement between the parties. Additionally, it emphasized the importance of establishing pre-existing disputes to invalidate the operational creditor's application.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-affirms-that-interest-cannot-be-considered-part-of-operational-debt-under-the-ibc
REEDLAW
NCLAT Affirms That Interest Cannot Be Considered Part of Operational Debt Under the IBC
The NCLAT affirmed that interest cannot be considered part of operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and…
Binding Nature of Resolution Plans in Corporate Insolvency: Upholding Pre-CIRP Dues Settlements
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of three appeals and observed that pre-CIRP dues must be settled strictly according to the terms of the approved Resolution Plan, which prohibits the appropriation of post-CIRP payments towards pre-CIRP liabilities, thereby reinforcing the binding nature of such plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/binding-nature-of-resolution-plans-in-corporate-insolvency-upholding-pre-cirp-dues-settlements
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of three appeals and observed that pre-CIRP dues must be settled strictly according to the terms of the approved Resolution Plan, which prohibits the appropriation of post-CIRP payments towards pre-CIRP liabilities, thereby reinforcing the binding nature of such plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/binding-nature-of-resolution-plans-in-corporate-insolvency-upholding-pre-cirp-dues-settlements
REEDLAW
Binding Nature of Resolution Plans in Corporate Insolvency: Upholding Pre-CIRP Dues Settlements
NCLAT affirmed that pre-CIRP dues must be settled strictly according to the terms of the approved Resolution Plan, which prohibits the appropriation of post-CIRP payments towards pre-CIRP liabilities.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal…
NCLAT Sets Aside the Order Initiating the CIRP, Clarifies the Standards for Admitting Operational Debt Disputes
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed an appeal and observed that for the admission of a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the absence of a pre-existing dispute regarding the operational debt must be clearly demonstrated, and any acknowledgement of debt must be weighed against genuine disputes raised prior to the demand notice. The NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to adequately consider these disputes, leading to the erroneous admission of the CIRP.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-sets-aside-the-order-initiating-the-cirp-clarifies-the-standards-for-admitting-operational-de
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed an appeal and observed that for the admission of a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the absence of a pre-existing dispute regarding the operational debt must be clearly demonstrated, and any acknowledgement of debt must be weighed against genuine disputes raised prior to the demand notice. The NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to adequately consider these disputes, leading to the erroneous admission of the CIRP.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-sets-aside-the-order-initiating-the-cirp-clarifies-the-standards-for-admitting-operational-de
REEDLAW
NCLAT Sets Aside the Order Initiating the CIRP, Clarifies the Standards for Admitting Operational Debt Disputes
NCLAT set aside the order initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, releasing the corporate debtor from the process, while clarifying the standards for admitting operational debt disputes.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT),…
NCLAT Upholds Dismissal of Section 9 Application, Emphasizing Existence of Pre-Existing Dispute and Non-Completion of Contractual Obligations
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed an appeal and observed that the existence of a pre-existing dispute, evidenced by the parties' correspondence and allegations of incomplete work and overpayment, justifies the dismissal of an application under Section 9 of the IBC, as the debt was not deemed due and payable. Consequently, the NCLT's decision was upheld, reaffirming that a legitimate claim cannot proceed when a valid dispute exists.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-upholds-dismissal-of-section-9-application-emphasizing-existence-of-pre-existing-dispute-and
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed an appeal and observed that the existence of a pre-existing dispute, evidenced by the parties' correspondence and allegations of incomplete work and overpayment, justifies the dismissal of an application under Section 9 of the IBC, as the debt was not deemed due and payable. Consequently, the NCLT's decision was upheld, reaffirming that a legitimate claim cannot proceed when a valid dispute exists.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-upholds-dismissal-of-section-9-application-emphasizing-existence-of-pre-existing-dispute-and
REEDLAW
NCLAT Upholds Dismissal of Section 9 Application, Emphasizing Existence of Pre-Existing Dispute and Non-Completion of Contractual…
NCLAT upheld the dismissal of the Section 9 application, emphasizing the existence of a pre-existing dispute and the non-completion of contractual obligations.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan…
Appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must adhere to a strict 45-day limitation, dismissing claims of lack of knowledge as insufficient grounds for delay
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench led by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) reviewed an appeal and observed that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is strictly calculated from the date of the Adjudicating Authority's order, and any delay beyond the permissible 45 days cannot be condoned, regardless of claims of ignorance or delayed knowledge. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that deemed knowledge from public announcements precludes an appellant from arguing unawareness of proceedings.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/appeals-under-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-must-adhere-to-a-strict-45-day-limitation-dismissi
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench led by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) reviewed an appeal and observed that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is strictly calculated from the date of the Adjudicating Authority's order, and any delay beyond the permissible 45 days cannot be condoned, regardless of claims of ignorance or delayed knowledge. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that deemed knowledge from public announcements precludes an appellant from arguing unawareness of proceedings.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/appeals-under-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-must-adhere-to-a-strict-45-day-limitation-dismissi
REEDLAW
Appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must adhere to a strict 45-day limitation, dismissing claims of lack of knowledge…
NCLAT affirmed that appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code had to adhere to a strict 45-day limitation, dismissing claims of lack of knowledge as insufficient grounds for delay.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench…
A legal representative requires explicit client authorization to withdraw an application; any withdrawal without such authority is invalid
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench led by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of appeals and miscellaneous IAs and observed that a legal representative must have explicit authorization from their client to withdraw an application, and any withdrawal made without such authority is invalid, thereby restoring the application for further consideration.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/a-legal-representative-requires-explicit-client-authorization-to-withdraw-an-application-any-withdr
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench led by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of appeals and miscellaneous IAs and observed that a legal representative must have explicit authorization from their client to withdraw an application, and any withdrawal made without such authority is invalid, thereby restoring the application for further consideration.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/a-legal-representative-requires-explicit-client-authorization-to-withdraw-an-application-any-withdr
REEDLAW
A legal representative requires explicit client authorization to withdraw an application; any withdrawal without such authority…
A legal representative required explicit client authorization to withdraw an application; any withdrawal made without such authority was deemed invalid.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench led by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial…
NCLAT Emphasizes the Necessity of a Fair Hearing Before Dismissing Applications Under Section 7
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench led by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Members) reviewed a bunch of appeals and miscellaneous IAs and emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing before dismissing applications under Section 7, ruling that applications under Section 65 are maintainable even if filed before the admission of Section 7. The Appellate Tribunal focused on procedural fairness and did not address the merits of the case.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-emphasizes-the-necessity-of-a-fair-hearing-before-dismissing-applications-under-section-7
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench led by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Members) reviewed a bunch of appeals and miscellaneous IAs and emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing before dismissing applications under Section 7, ruling that applications under Section 65 are maintainable even if filed before the admission of Section 7. The Appellate Tribunal focused on procedural fairness and did not address the merits of the case.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-emphasizes-the-necessity-of-a-fair-hearing-before-dismissing-applications-under-section-7
REEDLAW
NCLAT Emphasizes the Necessity of a Fair Hearing Before Dismissing Applications Under Section 7
NCLAT Emphasized the Necessity of a Fair Hearing Before Dismissing Applications Under Section 7 and Upheld the Maintainability of Section 65 Applications.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench led by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain…
IBBI Celebrates Eighth Annual Day with Keynote Addresses and Recognition of Achievements in Insolvency Resolution
On October 1, 2024, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) celebrated its Eighth Annual Day, a significant milestone marked by a series of events, including an Annual Day Lecture Series. The occasion was graced by notable dignitaries, including Chief Justice (Retd.) Mr. Ramalingam Sudhakar served as the Chief Guest and delivered the keynote address. The event featured a special lecture by Mr. Amitabh Kant, India's G20 Sherpa and former CEO of NITI Aayog, as well as addresses from Dr. V. Anantha Nageswaran, Chief Economic Advisor of the Ministry of Finance, and Ms. Deepti Gaur Mukerjee, Secretary of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/ibbi-celebrates-eighth-annual-day-with-keynote-addresses-and-recognition-of-achievements-in-insolven
On October 1, 2024, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) celebrated its Eighth Annual Day, a significant milestone marked by a series of events, including an Annual Day Lecture Series. The occasion was graced by notable dignitaries, including Chief Justice (Retd.) Mr. Ramalingam Sudhakar served as the Chief Guest and delivered the keynote address. The event featured a special lecture by Mr. Amitabh Kant, India's G20 Sherpa and former CEO of NITI Aayog, as well as addresses from Dr. V. Anantha Nageswaran, Chief Economic Advisor of the Ministry of Finance, and Ms. Deepti Gaur Mukerjee, Secretary of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/ibbi-celebrates-eighth-annual-day-with-keynote-addresses-and-recognition-of-achievements-in-insolven
REEDLAW
IBBI Celebrates Eighth Annual Day with Keynote Addresses and Recognition of Achievements in Insolvency Resolution
On October 1, 2024, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) celebrated its Eighth Annual Day, a significant milestone marked by a series of events, including an Annual Day Lecture Series. The occasion was graced by notable dignitaries, including…
NCLAT upholds the denial of permission for a fresh Section 9 application, stressing that withdrawals require sufficient grounds and strict adherence to insolvency timelines
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed a bunch of two appeals and observed that under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, permission to withdraw a petition with liberty to file a fresh application is contingent on demonstrating sufficient grounds, and the Adjudicating Authority has discretion to deny such permission, particularly in the context of maintaining timelines in insolvency proceedings.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-upholds-the-denial-of-permission-for-a-fresh-section-9-application-stressing-that-withdrawals
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed a bunch of two appeals and observed that under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, permission to withdraw a petition with liberty to file a fresh application is contingent on demonstrating sufficient grounds, and the Adjudicating Authority has discretion to deny such permission, particularly in the context of maintaining timelines in insolvency proceedings.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-upholds-the-denial-of-permission-for-a-fresh-section-9-application-stressing-that-withdrawals
REEDLAW
NCLAT upholds the denial of permission for a fresh Section 9 application, stressing that withdrawals require sufficient grounds…
NCLAT upheld the denial of permission for a fresh Section 9 application, stressing that withdrawals required sufficient grounds and strict adherence to insolvency timelines.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice…
NCLAT rules that the Adjudicating Authority erred in denying the Successful Resolution Applicant protections under Section 32A of the IBC
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed an appeal and observed that the Adjudicating Authority erred in denying the Successful Resolution Applicant protections under Section 32A of the IBC, which mandates the release of assets attached by the Enforcement Directorate once a Resolution Plan is approved, thereby facilitating the implementation of the plan without encumbrances from pre-CIRP liabilities.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-rules-that-the-adjudicating-authority-erred-in-denying-the-successful-resolution-applicant-pro
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed an appeal and observed that the Adjudicating Authority erred in denying the Successful Resolution Applicant protections under Section 32A of the IBC, which mandates the release of assets attached by the Enforcement Directorate once a Resolution Plan is approved, thereby facilitating the implementation of the plan without encumbrances from pre-CIRP liabilities.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-rules-that-the-adjudicating-authority-erred-in-denying-the-successful-resolution-applicant-pro
REEDLAW
NCLAT rules that the Adjudicating Authority erred in denying the Successful Resolution Applicant protections under Section 32A…
NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority erred in denying the Successful Resolution Applicant protections under Section 32A of the IBC.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr.…
NCLAT Upholds Enforceability of Personal Guarantors' Obligations Despite Assignment and Put Option Agreements
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed a bunch of two appeals and observed that the personal guarantors' obligations under the Deed of Guarantee were enforceable independently of any separate securities or the Put Option Agreement, affirming that the assignment of debt to the asset reconstruction company was valid and that the invocation of the guarantee was appropriate, irrespective of claims against the borrower.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-upholds-enforceability-of-personal-guarantors-obligations-despite-assignment-and-put-option-a
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed a bunch of two appeals and observed that the personal guarantors' obligations under the Deed of Guarantee were enforceable independently of any separate securities or the Put Option Agreement, affirming that the assignment of debt to the asset reconstruction company was valid and that the invocation of the guarantee was appropriate, irrespective of claims against the borrower.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-upholds-enforceability-of-personal-guarantors-obligations-despite-assignment-and-put-option-a
REEDLAW
NCLAT Upholds Enforceability of Personal Guarantors' Obligations Despite Assignment and Put Option Agreements
NCLAT upheld the enforceability of personal guarantors' obligations despite the presence of assignment and Put Option Agreements.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun…
Pre-Package Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP): Extension of Time Beyond 120 Days—Statutory Provisions, Whether Directory or Mandatory
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed an appeal filed by the Resolution professional and observed that the NCLT has the discretion to grant extensions for the Pre-Package Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) beyond the 120 days, as the statutory provisions, while using "shall," can be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory, allowing for judicial flexibility in appropriate cases. The NCLAT Bench noted that this aligns with the Supreme Court’s precedent that allows for extensions in insolvency processes when it serves the interests of stakeholders and is not attributable to the litigants' actions.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/pre-package-insolvency-resolution-process-ppirp-extension-of-time-beyond-120-days-statutory-provi
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed an appeal filed by the Resolution professional and observed that the NCLT has the discretion to grant extensions for the Pre-Package Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) beyond the 120 days, as the statutory provisions, while using "shall," can be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory, allowing for judicial flexibility in appropriate cases. The NCLAT Bench noted that this aligns with the Supreme Court’s precedent that allows for extensions in insolvency processes when it serves the interests of stakeholders and is not attributable to the litigants' actions.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/pre-package-insolvency-resolution-process-ppirp-extension-of-time-beyond-120-days-statutory-provi
REEDLAW
Pre-Package Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP): Extension of Time Beyond 120 Days—Statutory Provisions, Whether Directory or…
Pre-package Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) allows for judicial discretion to extend timelines despite statutory limits, reflecting the principle that provisions using "shall" may be interpreted as a directory when it serves the interests of stakeholders…
High Court Rules That All Creditors and Stakeholders Are Bound by NCLT/NCLAT-Approved Resolution Plans, Regardless of Their Consent
The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that all creditors and stakeholders are bound by a Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT/NCLAT, regardless of their consent, and confirms that Section 32A of the IBC provides immunity to corporate debtors and their assets post-approval, thereby ensuring that the successful resolution applicant operates without the burden of unresolved claims.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/high-court-rules-that-all-creditors-and-stakeholders-are-bound-by-nclt-nclat-approved-resolution-pla
The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that all creditors and stakeholders are bound by a Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT/NCLAT, regardless of their consent, and confirms that Section 32A of the IBC provides immunity to corporate debtors and their assets post-approval, thereby ensuring that the successful resolution applicant operates without the burden of unresolved claims.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/high-court-rules-that-all-creditors-and-stakeholders-are-bound-by-nclt-nclat-approved-resolution-pla
REEDLAW
High Court Rules That All Creditors and Stakeholders Are Bound by NCLT/NCLAT-Approved Resolution Plans, Regardless of Their Consent
The High Court ruled that all creditors and stakeholders are bound by a Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT/NCLAT, regardless of their consent.The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that all creditors and stakeholders are bound…
NCLAT Affirms Validity of Co-operative Banks' Debt Assignments to Asset Reconstruction Companies Under SARFAESI Act
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed an appeal and observed that co-operative banks, including multi-state co-operative banks, are classified as "banks" under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, thereby validating their ability to assign debts to asset reconstruction companies, which was affirmed by both statutory provisions and judicial precedent.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-affirms-validity-of-co-operative-banks-debt-assignments-to-asset-reconstruction-companies-und
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Members) reviewed an appeal and observed that co-operative banks, including multi-state co-operative banks, are classified as "banks" under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, thereby validating their ability to assign debts to asset reconstruction companies, which was affirmed by both statutory provisions and judicial precedent.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclat-affirms-validity-of-co-operative-banks-debt-assignments-to-asset-reconstruction-companies-und
REEDLAW
NCLAT Affirms Validity of Co-operative Banks' Debt Assignments to Asset Reconstruction Companies Under SARFAESI Act
NCLAT upheld the validity of the assignment of debt by co-operative banks to asset reconstruction companies under the SARFAESI Act.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun…
NCLT's Failure to Assess Necessary Elements under Section 66 of the IBC Leads to Revival of Application for Reconsideration by NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of two appeals and observed that the Adjudicating Authority failed to establish the necessary elements under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for declaring transactions as fraudulent, necessitating the revival of the application for fresh consideration to ensure due process and justice.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclt-s-failure-to-assess-necessary-elements-under-section-66-of-the-ibc-leads-to-revival-of-applicat
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) reviewed a bunch of two appeals and observed that the Adjudicating Authority failed to establish the necessary elements under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for declaring transactions as fraudulent, necessitating the revival of the application for fresh consideration to ensure due process and justice.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/nclt-s-failure-to-assess-necessary-elements-under-section-66-of-the-ibc-leads-to-revival-of-applicat
REEDLAW
NCLT's Failure to Assess Necessary Elements under Section 66 of the IBC Leads to Revival of Application for Reconsideration by…
NCLAT determined that the Adjudicating Authority failed to properly assess the requirements of Section 66 of the IBC regarding fraudulent transactions.The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson)…
High Court Upholds IBBI's Suspension of Insolvency Professional for Regulatory Violations
The Delhi High Court Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad recently reviewed a Writ Petition along with Miscellaneous Applications and observed that the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI acted within its authority in suspending the Petitioner’s registration, as the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the role of the Resolution Professional necessitated strict adherence to regulatory standards.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/high-court-upholds-ibbi-s-suspension-of-insolvency-professional-for-regulatory-violations
The Delhi High Court Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad recently reviewed a Writ Petition along with Miscellaneous Applications and observed that the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI acted within its authority in suspending the Petitioner’s registration, as the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the role of the Resolution Professional necessitated strict adherence to regulatory standards.
Explore:
https://www.reedlaw.in/post/high-court-upholds-ibbi-s-suspension-of-insolvency-professional-for-regulatory-violations
REEDLAW
High Court Upholds IBBI's Suspension of Insolvency Professional for Regulatory Violations
The High Court upheld the suspension of the Insolvency Professional by the IBBI due to regulatory violations.The Delhi High Court Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad recently reviewed a Writ Petition along with Miscellaneous Applications and…