Tag: NCLAT

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

Can a delay caused by a stay granted by a Higher Court in implementation of a Resolution Plan be excluded from the time given for the implementation of the Resolution Plan

Can a delay caused by a stay granted by a Higher Court in implementation of a Resolution Plan be excluded from the time given for the implementation of the Resolution Plan?

Saturday July 20, 2024. BY Malavika Sachin and Soham Gadgil | Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Introduction: In the matter of Majestic Auto Limited v. Sharan Hospitality Pvt Ltd. & Anr.[i], the Hon’ble NCLAT held that when a Higher Court grants a stay order which puts an embargo on implementation of

Related Parties of the Corporate Debtor cannot circumvent Proviso to Section 21(2) of IBC by Assignment of Financial Debt to a Third Party NCLAT Delhi

Related Parties of the Corporate Debtor cannot circumvent Proviso to Section 21(2) of IBC by Assignment of Financial Debt to a Third Party: NCLAT Delhi

Tuesday July 2, 2024. BY Shradha Patil and Vanshika Mathur | Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Introduction In the case of Peanence Commercial Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Mamta Binani (RP for Rolta India Limited)[1], the Hon’ble NCLAT upheld the decision of NCLT Mumbai Bench stating that merely assignment of financial

Section 5(2) of the SARFAESI Act contains a deeming clause that allows the ARC to pursue the Section 7 IBC proceedings, in cases where an Assignment Agreement is duly registered: NCLAT Delhi

Section 5(2) of the SARFAESI Act contains a deeming clause that allows the ARC to pursue the Section 7 IBC proceedings, in cases where an Assignment Agreement is duly registered: NCLAT Delhi

Wednesday June 26, 2024. BY Malavika Sachin and Vanshika Mathur | Insolvency & Bankruptcy

In the case of Emta Coal Ltd. v. L&T Finance Ltd. and Anr., the National Company Appellate Tribunal vide Order dated 28.05.2024 held that when debt assignment is registered without raising any objections regarding inadequacy

1 2 3 4