Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code Is Not For Money Recovery Proceedings: Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose in the case of Invest Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Girnar Fibres Ltd. reiterates that the provisions of insolvency and bankruptcy code are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such. Invest...

Yes Bank Initiates Insolvency Proceeding Against Zee Learn Ltd, An Essel Group Company: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice P.N. Deshmukh (Judicial Member) and Shri K.K. Vohra (Technical Member), has issued notice to Zee Learn Limited in a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC"), titled Yes Bank Ltd. v Zee Learn Ltd. The order was passed on 12.04.2022. Zee Learn Ltd. is an Essel...

Interest Free Security Deposit Is An Operational Debt: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Dr. Alok Srivastava and Ms. Shreesha Merla in the case of Vibrus Homes Pvt. Ltd. versus Ashimara Housing Pvt. Ltd. held that an interest free security deposit towards advance license fee will qualifies as an operational debt under the Insolvency &...

Insolvency Proceedings Initiated Against GVK Industries Ltd. At The Instance Of J&K Bank: NCLT, Hyderabad

The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Hyderabad Bench, comprising of Shri Bhaskara Pantula Mohan (Judicial Member) and Shri Veera Brahma Rao Arekapudi (Technical Member), while adjudicating a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act, 2016 ("IBC") filed in M/s Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v GVK Industries Ltd. has initiated Corporate Insolvency...

Territorial Jurisdiction Of NCLT Cannot Be Taken Away By Agreement Between The Parties: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Ms. Shreesha Merla in the case of Anil Kumar Malhotra v. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. held that the territorial jurisdiction of NCLT to decide case under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be taken away by the agreement between the...

Merely Because An Application Under Section 7 Of IBC Is Filed, It Is Not An Embargo On The Court Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that merely because an application under S.7 of IBC is filed before the adjudicating authority which is pending consideration does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application filed under S. 11 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni has held that an application filed under S.7 of the IBC creates an...

Look Back Period Under Section 46 Not Applicable To Section 66 Under Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016: NCLAT

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) principal bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Dr. Alok Srivastava, Ms. Shreesha Merla in the case of Aditya Kumar Tibrewal v. Om Prakash Pandey held that the look back period prescribed under Section 46 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) does not apply to transactions under Section 66 of the...

NCLAT Delhi Uphelds That Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Sent Into Liquidation Just Because Liquidation Value Is More Than The Value Of The Resolution Plan

The National Company Law Appellate Tribnal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), while adjudicating an appeal filed in CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v SS Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd., has upheld the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by NCLT Kolkata...

MSMEs, Insolvency Resolution Processes & The Avoidance Applications

Prior to the amendment inserting Chapter III-A to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code'), the corporate insolvency resolution process ('CIRP') for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises ('MSME') was covered by Chapters II and III of the Code with no regard for the peculiarities in operations and compliances of corporate entities classified as micro, small, medium or otherwise. Prompted perhaps by the global pandemic and the ensuing stresses on corporate balance sheets the nodal...

Time Period Under Regulation 35A Is Directory And Not Mandatory: NCLAT, Delhi

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) principal bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Dr. Alok Srivastava, Ms. Shreesha Merla in the case of Aditya Kumar Tibrewal v. Om Prakash Pandey held that time period prescribed under Regulation 35A of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations (CIRP Regulations) is directory in nature and not mandatory. Resolution Professional of M/s...

Weekly Digest Of IBC Cases: April 18th To April 24th, 2022

Supreme CourtWages/Salaries Of Only Those Workmen/Employees Who Actually Worked During CIRP Are To Be Included In CIRP Costs Case title: Sunil Kumar Jain v Sundaresh Bhatt 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382 Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5910 of 2019 Supreme Court division bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Aniruddha Bose has held that the dues towards the wages/salaries of...

'Having NCLT Benches At Different Locations Causes Administrative Difficulties': Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo On Space Vacated By MNRE

The Delhi High Court has recently directed the maintenance of status quo with regards to the occupation, renovation or construction of the space vacated by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy in the building, where the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is located, till May 4, 2022.A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla was of the...