There is no look back period specified under Section 66 of IBC, which refers to Fraudulent Transactions and unless the Liquidator scrutinises the documents, he would not be able to finalise or conclude whether the transaction also falls under Sections 43 or 46 of the Code – Amardeep Singh Bhatia Vs. Abhishek Nagori Liquidator for Asian Natural Resources (India) Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In case you've already logged in, click here to know why you're not able to access this content.

 

If a communication issued earlier to the Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the IBC indicates dispute, it can be taken into account by the Adjudicating Authority – First WalkIn Technologies Vs. Coffee Day Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

In case you've already logged in, click here to know why you're not able to access this content.

 

If workers are not specifically includes in the list of Stakeholders, under Liquidation Regulation 31, they cannot be made a part of the SCC under Regulation 31A(1) of Liquidation Process Regulations – Varrsana Employee Welfare Association Vs. Anil Goel, The Liquidator of Varrsana Ispat Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In case you've already logged in, click here to know why you're not able to access this content.

 

The period of Limitation for filing a Suit/Appeal, is fixed by Law/Statute/Code and ordinarily, it cannot be deemed to be excluded or extended, automatically or as a matter of routine – M.K. Resely Vs. Union Bank of India – NCLAT Chennai

In case you've already logged in, click here to know why you're not able to access this content.

 

Whether Adjudicating Authority has the sufficient power to extend the time lines for making payments as per approved Resolution Plan and Whether Adjudicating Authority can order for fresh CIRP – Earthin Projects Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anup Kumar Singh RP of Indu Projects Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

In case you've already logged in, click here to know why you're not able to access this content.

 

Once CIRP admission order under Section 7 of IBC has been stayed by NCLAT, IRP is not entitled to discharge any function and the Corporate Debtor also cannot be restored as it was functioning prior to admission of Section 7 application – Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs. UCO Bank – NCLAT New Delhi

In case you've already logged in, click here to know why you're not able to access this content.

 

Any acknowledgement in the Balance Sheets, or any part payments made thereunder can be construed as an Acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1962 – Haridas Gautamkumar Dave Vs. Indian Transformers Co. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In case you've already logged in, click here to know why you're not able to access this content.