405

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not create a bar on encashment of PBG during moratorium – Bhuvan Madan IRP of Indrajit Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not create a bar on encashment of PBG during moratorium – Bhuvan Madan IRP of Indrajit Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Amount deducted from salary of Employees and was not deposited with Employees Cooperative Credit Society is covered under Section 66 of IBC – Dr. Vichitra Narayan Pathak RP of Golden Tobacco Ltd. Vs. Suniel Dhhandhania and Anr. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

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

Amount deducted from salary of Employees and was not deposited with Employees Cooperative Credit Society is covered under Section 66 of IBC – Dr. Vichitra Narayan Pathak RP of Golden Tobacco Ltd. Vs. Suniel Dhhandhania and Anr. – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Cheque issued prior to CIRP admission date and enchased during CIRP cannot be termed as preferential transaction or violative of the moratorium u/s 14 of IBC – Pratim Bayal Vs. Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

In this case, the Erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor had issued a cheque dated 08.01.2022. CIRP was admitted against the Corporate Debtor on 12.01.2022. The Cheque dated 08.01.2022 was presented for encashment on 17.02.2022 and was encashed on 18.02.2022 and was appropriated against the outstanding dues towards loans provided.
RP application that transaction may be considered as a preferential transaction as the subject encashment is in complete violation of Section 14 of IBC seeking refund thereof along with the interest in the CIRP account.
NCLT Kolkata Bench, referring the decision of in the case of K. Saraswathy v. P.S.S. Soma Sundaram Chettiar held that the payments of the cheque released subsequently relates back to the receipt of the cheque which in the instant case appears 08.01.2022 and since the moratorium was declared on 12.01.2022, this transaction in view of the ratio of the Ogale glass works(supra) does not violate the moratorium.

Cheque issued prior to CIRP admission date and enchased during CIRP cannot be termed as preferential transaction or violative of the moratorium u/s 14 of IBC – Pratim Bayal Vs. Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

There is no provision in the IBC for Corporate Debtor to constitute CoC with a single Operational Creditor – V. Duraisamy IRP of M/s. H G S Diaries and Agro Ltd. Vs. Jeyapriya Fruits and Vegetables Commission Agent – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT there is no provision in the Code for the Corporate Debtor to constitute the CoC with a single Operational Creditor, when it is seen from the record that despite the public announcement being made inviting claims from its stakeholders, the IRP has not received a single claim from the date of initiation of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP. As the CoC itself is not constituted and in the light of the fact that not a single claim was received by the IRP.

There is no provision in the IBC for Corporate Debtor to constitute CoC with a single Operational Creditor – V. Duraisamy IRP of M/s. H G S Diaries and Agro Ltd. Vs. Jeyapriya Fruits and Vegetables Commission Agent – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

NCLAT set aside the order of AA initiating CIRP against HCL Technologies Ltd. – Mr. C. Vijayakumar Managing Director (Power of Board of Directors suspended) Vs. M/s. Sahaj Bharti Travels – NCLAT New Delhi

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

NCLAT set aside the order of AA initiating CIRP against HCL Technologies Ltd. – Mr. C. Vijayakumar Managing Director (Power of Board of Directors suspended) Vs. M/s. Sahaj Bharti Travels – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

As per Section 233 of the IBC, the liquidator is protected against any coercive action provided his act during CIRP is a bonafide – Liquidator of Varia Engineering work Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Police of CBI – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

The Liquidator of Varia Engineering work Ltd.(CD) filed an application directing the Superintendent of Police of CBI(respondent) not to proceed against him for the act which he has done during the CIRP period as the Liquidator.
The Adjudicating Authority held that as per Section 233 of the IBC, the liquidator is protected against any coercive action provided his act during CIRP is a bonafide. The protection is available to the liquidator. It is also made clear that IBBI is the only Authority to look into and inquire into any allegation against the liquidator when he acted during the discharge of his duty as the Liquidator.

As per Section 233 of the IBC, the liquidator is protected against any coercive action provided his act during CIRP is a bonafide – Liquidator of Varia Engineering work Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Police of CBI – NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top