Is the Govt. considering any amendments to the IBC to ensure priority of Govt./ tax dues?
Whether the Govt. is considering any amendments to the IBC to ensure that taxes passed on to the consumers […]
Whether the Govt. is considering any amendments to the IBC to ensure that taxes passed on to the consumers […]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India 4th February, 2025 Discussion Paper on ‘Streamlining Processes under the Code: Reforms for
The Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) The contract can be either oral or written. When the contract is oral, its enforceability will come into question if there is dispute.
(ii) Mere fact that a reply to notice under Section 8(1) having not been given within 10 days or no reply to demand notice having been filed by the Corporate Debtor does not preclude the latter to bring relevant materials before the adjudicating authority to establish that there is pre-existing dispute which may lead to the rejection of Section 9 application.
(iii) Pre-existing dispute employed under the IBC cannot be equated with even the principle of preponderance of probability which guides a civil court at the stage of finally decreeing a suit.
(iv) The IBC is not intended to be a substitute for a recovery forum.
The Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that it is well settled that even if there is no plea raised regarding limitation, the Court is obliged to examine the question of limitation before further proceeding in any matter. The default in the case of Personal Guarantors arises when the guarantees were invoked making them liable to pay the debt. Generally, the default date of the principal borrower is the date of default for the guarantor also. However, it may not always be the same, rather it depends upon the nature and contents of the deed of guarantee executed by the guarantor.
The Hon’ble NCLT Ahmedabad Bench held that the applicant being the EPF authority has raised certain demands which were adjudicated during the CIRP period which was after the initiation of the moratorium under Sec. 14(1) of IBC, when no assessment proceedings can be continued by the applicant irrespective of whether certain documents were sought from the Resolution Professional. This does not, however, as per Sec. 33 (5) prohibit the applicant to continue with or even initiation of proceedings after the liquidation order is passed. When the liquidation order is passed, the moratorium ends which enables the protected assets of the Corporate Debtor to be free of any further consideration under liquidation estate.
The Hon’ble NCLT Principal Bench is of the view that the judgment, in Sandeep Mittal v. ASREC (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2024) ibclaw.in 573 NCLAT relied by Corporate Debtor is on a different footing based on a different factual matrix in which primarily the ingredients of Section 5(8)(f) of the Code were covered whereas in the present case ingredients of Section 5(8)(d) of the Code is applicable wherein it is a case of liability of Corporate Debtor, as is in the form a financial lease with the element of time value of money being incorporated in the agreement to sale itself and part transacted and balance defaulted with interest liability.
It is well established that under the Companies Act, the principle of corporate democracy centers around shareholders exercising their rights through voting mechanisms, typically in general meetings. This ensures majority rule while safeguarding minority rights, thus promoting accountability and fairness in corporate governance. Therefore, unless there is a clear violation of minority rights, the majority prevails.
(2025) ibclaw.in 115 NCLT IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALHyderabad Bench Mr. Chintala Maipal Reddy and Ors.v.Mr. Nethi Mallikarjuna
(2025) ibclaw.in 108 NCLT IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALAhmedabad Bench Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.v.Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd.
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA NOTIFICATION New Delhi, 3rd February, 2025 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency