Insolvency and Bankruptcy code 2016

Non-supply of free copy of impugned order does not affect, and thus, shall not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal under S. 61 IBC. Scheme laid down in S. 421(3) of the Companies Act and S. 61(2) IBC, distinguished, Limitation period prescribed under Special Act, as in the present case IBC having an […]

Admission of insolvency application on basis of partly admitted claim by debtor is not permissible when debtor willing to pay such admitted amount but disputes balance claim. Adjudication on existence of debt beyond admitted debt is necessary for admitting application.   [Compack Enterprises India (P) Ltd. v. Jitendra Impex (P) Ltd., (2023) 8 SCC 742]

Held, the approved resolution plan has to be implemented at the earliest and that is the mandate under IBC. [Committee of creditors of Amtek Auto Limited v. Dinkar T. Vankatsubramanian and others, (2022) 4 SCC 754]

In this case, appellant’s proposal for modification/amendment of the resolution plan was declined by the resolution professional and thereupon, the appellant approached the adjudicating authority by filing an IA. Adjudicating authority passed the order dt. 13-12-2021 granting the prayer of the appellant but, at the same time, correspondingly allowed the other resolution applicant to place

Claims of Government/Revenue against corporate debtor which are not lodged before resolution professional, after issuance of public notices under Ss. 13 and 15, and not forming part of approved resolution plan, as such, on the date on which the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is

Non-supply of free copy of impugned order does not affect, and thus, shall not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal under S. 61 IBC. Scheme laid down in S. 421(3) of the Companies Act and S. 61(2) IBC, distinguished, Limitation period prescribed under Special Act, as in the present case IBC having an

Grant of stay/injunction under provisions of IBC against termination of contract entered into with corporate debtor is not permissible, when: (i) The contract is terminated dehors insolvency proceedings under IBC i.e. there exists no nexus between the termination notice and insolvency resolution proceedings, and (ii) Criteria laid down in Gujarat Urja, (2021) 7 SCC 209

Recording of reasons for fixation/determination of IRP/RP’s fee is necessary. Ad hoc determination of fee/non-consideration of basis of the claim or its reasonableness is not permissible. Held, setting aside of orders of NCLAT and NCLT. [Devarajan Raman v. Bank of India Ltd., (2022) 3 SCC 254]

Committee of Creditors (CoC) has power to pass a resolution for liquidation of corporate debtor till such time as the plan has not been approved by adjudicating authority. Decision in regard to liquidation of corporate debtor was not-interfered with and plea of violation of natural justice also rejected. Hence, order of NCLAT, held, did not

Quashment of proceedings against corporate debtor under S. 138 NI Act after issuance of moratorium under S. 14 IBC:  Ss. 138/141 of the NI Act proceeding against corporate debtor is covered by S. 14 (1)(a) IBC as held in P. Mohanraj, (2021) 6 SCC 258. Hence, corporate debtor cannot be proceeded against under S. 138