08/08/2024

Section 66 of IBC does not require the Resolution Professional to be satisfied before filing of an application in terms of Section 66 of the Code – Modilal Pamecha (Liquidator) Vs. Prince Goyal and 17 Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

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

Section 66 of IBC does not require the Resolution Professional to be satisfied before filing of an application in terms of Section 66 of the Code – Modilal Pamecha (Liquidator) Vs. Prince Goyal and 17 Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Secured Creditor can be both Operational Creditor as well as Financial Creditor but Financial Creditor is altogether different from Operational Creditor – Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Anand Sonbhadra – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that there is no error in the impugned order because the secured creditor can be both operational creditor as well as the financial creditor but financial creditor is altogether different from the operational creditor and since it has been held that a similar authority, namely, Noida Authority is an operational creditor, claiming the same relief on the basis of the lease deed, the Appellant, namely, GNIDA cannot be held to be a Financial Creditor on the same facts and has rightly been held to be an operational creditor.

Secured Creditor can be both Operational Creditor as well as Financial Creditor but Financial Creditor is altogether different from Operational Creditor – Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Anand Sonbhadra – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

A petition filed under Section 95 of IBC for initiation of insolvency against Personal Guarantor which is collusive with an attempt to thwart the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, is not maintainable – Neon Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Mayank Shah and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, the deed of personal guarantee provides that after the demand notice is served, 60 days time shall remain available with the guarantor for discharging his liability whereas in the present case, gap between the demand notice and the application u/s 95 of IBC is just approx. one month.

Also, the petition under Section 95 was timed in such a manner that the proceedings filed by R1 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, pending before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, may be stayed automatically in view of the operation of Section 96 of the Code.

Hon’ble NCLAT upheld the decision of NCLT in which the application u/s 95 of IBC was dismissed and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

A petition filed under Section 95 of IBC for initiation of insolvency against Personal Guarantor which is collusive with an attempt to thwart the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, is not maintainable – Neon Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Mayank Shah and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top