03/02/2023

Amount of advance paid for purchase of shares of the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the definition of Financial Debt which is defined u/s 5(8) of IBC – Jushya Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ninety Properties Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

The Financial Creditor agreed to purchase 100% of share capital of the Corporate Debtor held by its Shareholders/promoters for a lumpsum consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- and paid an advance payment of Rs. 1,25,00,000 to the Corporate Debtor towards this transaction on 17.12.2014.
Adjudicating Authority observed that amount of advance paid for purchase of shares of the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the definition of Financial Debt as it was not disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. It is further noted that such advance also does not fall within the inclusive definition part as contained in clause (a) to (i).

Amount of advance paid for purchase of shares of the Corporate Debtor does not fall under the definition of Financial Debt which is defined u/s 5(8) of IBC – Jushya Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ninety Properties Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

CIRP application under Section 9 of IBC is not maintainable in case of principal amount has entirely been paid during the pendency of the application and the issue is only regarding to interest outstanding – Rohit Motawat Vs. Madhu Sharma Proprietor Hind Chem Corporation & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

An application filed by Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the IBC for default of Rs. 15,10,151/- (Principal amount Rs. 9,97,122 and Interest amount Rs. 5,13,029) has been admitted by Adjudicating Authority and CIRP against Shubh Aluminium Pvt. Ltd.(Corporate Debtor) has been initiated. During the pendency of this proceedings, the principal amount of Rs. 9,97,122/- was paid by the Appellant by way of Cheque and Demand Draft dated 06.01.2021.

CIRP application under Section 9 of IBC is not maintainable in case of principal amount has entirely been paid during the pendency of the application and the issue is only regarding to interest outstanding – Rohit Motawat Vs. Madhu Sharma Proprietor Hind Chem Corporation & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

IBC Section 7 application cannot be rejected on the ground that certain portion of sanction amount of financial facilities could not be disbursed by the Financial Creditors – State Bank of India Vs. N.S. Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority held that when Financial Creditor, by its own acts of omission and commission, contributes to the default on the part of the Corporate Debtor, Application under Section 7 may not be admitted. Adjudicating Authority has based its decision of rejecting Section 7 Application on the ground that the default committed by the Corporate Debtor in restructuring its debt, there is contributory negligence by the State Bank of India as well as Punjab National Bank. 

IBC Section 7 application cannot be rejected on the ground that certain portion of sanction amount of financial facilities could not be disbursed by the Financial Creditors – State Bank of India Vs. N.S. Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Valuation having already been done and auction sale notice have been issued and auction sale conducted identifying the Successful Auction Bidder, there was no occasion for directing any appointment of forensic auditor – Kunwer Sachdev Vs. Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. Through Sh. Raj Kumar Ralhan(Liquidator) – NCLAT New Delhi

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

Valuation having already been done and auction sale notice have been issued and auction sale conducted identifying the Successful Auction Bidder, there was no occasion for directing any appointment of forensic auditor – Kunwer Sachdev Vs. Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. Through Sh. Raj Kumar Ralhan(Liquidator) – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top