02/01/2025

The essence of proceedings against a Personal Guarantor remains a recovery proceeding, which is clear from the words “Repayment Plan” as against a “Resolution Plan”, which is so generic a word meant for resolving a corporate person – Indian Bank Vs. Mr. Ankur Prahladka – NCLT Kolkata Bench

/ 1 minute of reading

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

The essence of proceedings against a Personal Guarantor remains a recovery proceeding, which is clear from the words “Repayment Plan” as against a “Resolution Plan”, which is so generic a word meant for resolving a corporate person – Indian Bank Vs. Mr. Ankur Prahladka – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Whether after payment of principal amount through settlement during the pendency of the petition, the Petition under Section 9 of IBC, is maintainable for the balance interest amount? – SNJ Synthetics Ltd. Vs. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench

/ 3 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLT Chandigarh Bench held that the principal amount has been paid during the pendency of the Petition, therefore requirement of Section 9(5)(i)(b) is not complied with. In the present case, the principal amount stands paid, therefore the CIRP cannot be initiated solely on the basis of the claim of interest component.

Whether after payment of principal amount through settlement during the pendency of the petition, the Petition under Section 9 of IBC, is maintainable for the balance interest amount? – SNJ Synthetics Ltd. Vs. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »

The attempt to recover interest for delayed payment under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016 in absence of any delayed interest clause in invoice or agreement, is like a recovery proceeding on the Corporate Debtor, which is barred in terms of Section 33(5) of IBC, 2016 – Parkash Cotton Pressing Factory Vs. Allahabad Bank and Anr. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority observes that in the absence of any clause on interest for delayed payment clause in any agreement or invoice, the Applicant is barred to claim this amount by virtue of Section 33(5) of IBC. In terms of Section 33(5) of IBC, no legal proceedings can be initiated against Corporate Debtor, therefore the same is covered under the term “other legal proceeding” used under the section 33(5) of IBC. Hence, the attempt to recover this amount under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016 in absence of any delayed interest clause in invoice or agreement on equity terms, is like a recovery proceeding on the Corporate Debtor, which is barred in terms of Section 33(5) of IBC, 2016.

The attempt to recover interest for delayed payment under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016 in absence of any delayed interest clause in invoice or agreement, is like a recovery proceeding on the Corporate Debtor, which is barred in terms of Section 33(5) of IBC, 2016 – Parkash Cotton Pressing Factory Vs. Allahabad Bank and Anr. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »

The scope and ambit of the NCLT Rule 154 cannot be extended to review the terms of its own order, howsoever strong the reason may be – Vardhman Polytex Ltd. Vs. Machinen Umwelttechnik Transportanlagen Gesekkschaft Gmbh and Anr. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench

/ 1 minute of reading

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

The scope and ambit of the NCLT Rule 154 cannot be extended to review the terms of its own order, howsoever strong the reason may be – Vardhman Polytex Ltd. Vs. Machinen Umwelttechnik Transportanlagen Gesekkschaft Gmbh and Anr. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »

Three conditions provided under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 can be alternatively applied and if any one of it is satisfied, the company petition under Section 241 is maintainable – Mr. Lokesh Kumar Bansal and Ors. Vs. Adhunik Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 9 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLAT set aside the order of NCLT wherein the NCLT relied upon only clause (c) above viz. members holding not less than 1/10 of issued share capital of the company to hold the appellant did not fulfil the criteria but whereas it completely ignored these three conditions viz (a), (b) and (c) above can be alternatively applied and if any one of it is satisfied, the company petition under Section 241 would be maintainable.

Three conditions provided under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 can be alternatively applied and if any one of it is satisfied, the company petition under Section 241 is maintainable – Mr. Lokesh Kumar Bansal and Ors. Vs. Adhunik Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top