Tag: NCLAT

Collective action by all financial creditors not a prerequisite to file an application under Section 95 of the I&B code

Collective action by all financial creditors not a prerequisite to file an application under Section 95 of the I&B code

Friday September 13, 2024. BY Narpat Singh and Anjali Satish | Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Dheeraj Wadhawan v. Union Bank of India & Anr.[1] NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi Introduction and Facts of the Case The present case, which was decided by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on

An Application filed under Section 65 of the Code is maintainable after the Application under Section 7,9 or 10 is filed, and not after the admission: Hon’ble NCLAT.

An Application filed under Section 65 of the Code is maintainable after the Applications under Section 7,9 or 10 are filed, and not necessarily only after admission: Hon’ble NCLAT, New Delhi

Monday August 26, 2024. BY Malavika Sachin and Vaibhav Dash | Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Introduction: The Hon’ble NCLAT in a significant ruling, recently addressed a crucial issue in insolvency jurisprudence vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 in the matter of Devashree Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs Aravali Cylinders Pvt.

NCLAT’s Authoritative Interpretation of Prior Approval under Section 33(5) of the I&B Code.

NCLAT’s Authoritative Interpretation of Prior Approval under Section 33(5) of the I&B Code

Saturday August 17, 2024. BY Malavika Sachin and Khushi Kholia. | Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Introduction On May 31, 2024, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a significant judgment in the matter of Slimline Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Jigar Bhatt. The ruling, encapsulated

Treatment of EPFO Dues (7A, 7Q and 14B of EPF Act) in Liquidation Exclusion under IBC Section 36(4)(a)(iii) and Non-Applicability of Section 53(1)

Treatment of EPFO Dues (7A, 7Q and 14B of EPF Act) in Liquidation: Exclusion under IBC Section 36(4)(a)(iii) and Non-Applicability of Section 53(1)

Saturday August 17, 2024. BY Narpat Singh and Prasad Sawant | Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Introduction: In the case of Mr. Anuj Bajpai vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation & Ors.[i], Liquidator submitted that Contribution under Section 7A should have been treated in accordance with Section 36(4) of the Code and,

Financial Creditor Can Change Default Date via Rejoinder Affidavit Under Section 95 Application against Personal Guarantor

Friday July 26, 2024. BY Narpat Singh and Prasad Sawant | Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Introduction:   In the case of Sanjeeb Ranjeet Das v. Punjab National Bank and Anr.[i], The Hon’ble NCLAT held that a Financial Creditor through a rejoinder affidavit in the application filed under Section 95 of The

Allottee who are part of Monthly Assured Return Plan agreement under a real estate project, cannot be considered a distinct class

Allottee who are part of Monthly Assured Return Plan agreement under a real estate project, cannot be considered a distinct class

Saturday July 20, 2024. BY Samuel Abraham and Soham Gadgil | Insolvency & Bankruptcy

In the case of Rita Malhotra and Anr. Vs Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the National Company Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 02.07.2024 held that the appellants do not cease to be an “allottee” merely because

1 2 3