IBC News
Google Abused Dominant Position Through Restrictive App Store Billing Policy But Didn't Deny Market Access: NCLAT Reduces Penalty From ₹936 Cr To ₹216 Cr
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has partially upheld the decision of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that Google leveraged its dominance in the Play Store ecosystem to promote Google Play which violates section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002. The...
Any Default Falling Within Section 10-A Period Of IBC Must Be Excluded When Calculating Total Outstanding Debt: NCLT Hyderabad
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench comprising of Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial) and Sri Sanjay Puri, Member (Technical) dismissed Section 9 petition filed by the Operational Creditor (Noveltech Feeds Private Limited) stating that the default amount falls within the Section 10-A period and there is presence of non-compliance of Rule 5 which is fatal to...
Demand Notice Issued U/S 13(2) Of SARFAESI Act Without Obligating Guarantor To Make Payment Is Not An Invocation Of Guarantee: NCLT Mumbai
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that Both the demand notice issued under Rule 7(1) of the Personal Guarantors Rules, 2019, and the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002...
IBC | Supreme Court Accepts Apology Of Tax Authorities For Asking Successful Resolution Applicant To Pay Dues Not Covered By Approved Plan
Giving the benefit of doubt and accepting their unconditional apology, the Supreme Court today disposed of a contempt petition filed against Chhattisgarh tax authorities for raising demand notices against a successful resolution applicant over claims in respect of a period prior to the approval of the resolution plan."we have no hesitation in holding that the demands raised by...
Application U/S 94 Of IBC Cannot Be Entertained Against Sole Proprietorship Firms: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Prem Narayan Singh has held that since sole proprietorship firms are not included in the definition of the corporate person under section 3(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), an application under section 94 of the Code cannot be entertained. Brief Facts: The petitioner is an owner of the...
NCLT Kolkata Remits Repayment Plan U/S 114(3) Of IBC To Committee Of Creditors Due To Non Consideration Of Detective Report
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata bench of Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member ) has remitted the repayment plan remitted to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration on the ground that no discussion took place on the detective report, which disclosed that the personal guarantor had sold certain properties and acquired...
Notice U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act Cannot Be Issued By Authority After Approval Of Resolution Plan U/S 31 Of IBC: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N.Ray has held that after approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), all liabilities prior to the approval of the plan stand extinguished. Therefore, the Income Tax Authority cannot be permitted to issue a notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961...
Adding Inflated Interest To Outstanding Liability Merely To Cross Threshold U/S 4 Of IBC Is Not Permissible: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the interest cannot be added to the outstanding liability when there is no contract between the parties to this effect and no past practice justifying such action merely to cross...
When There Is No Privity Of Contract Between Operational Creditor And Corporate Debtor, Application U/S 9 Of IBC Cannot Be Admitted: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), cannot be admitted when there is no privity of contract between the Operational Creditor and the...
NCLT Mumbai Dismisses Syska LED Lights' Plea For Withdrawal Of Insolvency Application U/S 12A Of IBC
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench comprising K.R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) has dismissed the withdrawal application filed under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC/Code) in the insolvency proceedings of Syska LED Lights Pvt. Ltd (Corporate Debtor). The Tribunal held that once a Corporate...
Fresh Period Of Limitation U/S 18 Of Limitation Act Begins From Date When Balance Sheet Is Signed By Corporate Debtor: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) for the purpose of filing an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) begins from the date the...
Order Passed After Considering All Materials Essential For Determining Issue Cannot Be Recalled: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority after considering all necessary materials essential for determining the issue cannot be recalled. Therefore, it cannot be said that such an...