317

When settlement consent term itself contemplates a clause for revival in event of default and default having been committed by the Corporate Debtor, the CIRP can be restored – IDBI Trausteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

On Corporate Debtor subsequent to the withdrawal of the Company Petition defaulted in making payment towards the second tranche as per consent term, the Appellant filed an I.A. seeking revival of the Company Petition which has been rejected by Adjudicating Authority observing that when the Company Petition was withdrawn after settlement there is no specific provision anywhere in the Code for reopening of the Company Petition.
NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the revival application 3196 of 2022 when the consent term itself contemplates a clause for revival in event of default and default having been committed by the Corporate Debtor, rejection of revival is to deny the Financial Creditor rightful remedy. Non-mention of specific liberty in the Order is inconsequential in view of the clear terms in the settlement which was the basis of withdrawal of Company Petition.

When settlement consent term itself contemplates a clause for revival in event of default and default having been committed by the Corporate Debtor, the CIRP can be restored – IDBI Trausteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Failing to adhere to terms and conditions of one time settlement, the Financial Creditor is entitled to file fresh Company Petition u/s 7 of IBC is justifiable? – M/s. ICICI Bank Limited Vs. M/s. OPTO Circuits (India) Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order with regard to sub para 4 of para 9 of the impugned order regarding the observation/liberty to file a fresh Company Petition by the Appellant Bank is erroneous and without application of mind and without following the Principles of Natural Justice and not adhering to the decision of this Tribunal being the Appellate Authority, is hereby quashed and set aside.

Failing to adhere to terms and conditions of one time settlement, the Financial Creditor is entitled to file fresh Company Petition u/s 7 of IBC is justifiable? – M/s. ICICI Bank Limited Vs. M/s. OPTO Circuits (India) Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Without actions being undertaken in the interests of all stakeholders, the payment of fee or expenses to RP cannot be made disproportionately on the basis of fee approved for conducting and completing CIRP – Mr. Pankaj Khaitan (IRP of Kushal International Ltd.) Vs. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. – NCLT Allahabad Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Without actions being undertaken in the interests of all stakeholders, the payment of fee or expenses to RP cannot be made disproportionately on the basis of fee approved for conducting and completing CIRP – Mr. Pankaj Khaitan (IRP of Kushal International Ltd.) Vs. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. – NCLT Allahabad Bench Read Post »

Whether the order passed in a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, 1996 is appealable under the provision of Section 13(1) of the Act, 2015 or not? – M/s Indu-Zmj-Zhengzhou Design-Xinfeng Consortium Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. – Jharkhand High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Whether the order passed in a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, 1996 is appealable under the provision of Section 13(1) of the Act, 2015 or not? – M/s Indu-Zmj-Zhengzhou Design-Xinfeng Consortium Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. – Jharkhand High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top