Without identifying the nature of the debt, NCLT decided that the RP could not deny a claim that financial debt originating from a term loan arrangement made between parties is combined with the amount resolved under a settlement document. It added that the Resolution Professional is not an adjudicating authority

In an appeal filed by a Resolution Professional (‘Applicant’), the request was placed seeking forgiveness for a delay of 408 days in filing the first appeal against the order passed by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Appellate Tribunal, before the division bench consisting of Justice Niral R. Mehta and

Telangana HC rejects a writ by borrowers seeking to set aside the auction-cum-sale notice (“auction notice”) under Rule 8(6) and 9(1) of Security Interest Enforcement Rules (“the Rules”). The borrowers contended that they defaulted in repayment of the loan, and Respondent Bank issued an auction notice and fixed a date

A division bench consisting of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, while probing the scope of Sec 34/37 of the Arbitration Act(“the act”), held that an arbitral decision can only be overturned if it violates Indian public policy. An appeal against the final order of Punjab and Haryana HC

SC’s division bench of Justice M.R.Shah and Justice B.V, Nagarathna set aside Karnataka HC’s interim order whereby HC ordered Phoenix ARC (“ARC/Appellant”) to retain the status quo vis-a-vis scheduled physical handover of the secured property of the respective borrowers/respondents. The borrowers’ loan accounts were declared NPA in 2013 and the

SEBI, on 12th January 2022 while acting upon two undated complaints, debarred six individuals (“Noticees”) for running a stock manipulation scam on popular social media platforms such as Twitter and Telegram. SEBI noted that Noticees were not registered as a market intermediary and prima facie found them influencing stock prices

In an appeal decided by the division bench of Justice L. N. Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai, the appellant questioned the NCLAT order (“impugned order”) directing the Corporate Debtor’s CIRP resume from the consideration stage. The SC quashed the impugned order holding that NCLAT made a grave error by interfering

The CCI dismissed a complaint alleging oppression and poor management by the majority shareholders of Overseas Courier Services India Pvt. Ltd. (OP/OCS India, a domestic and international courier service provider), concluding that the allegations relate to the Companies Act, 2013, and there is no discernible violation of the Competition Act’s

The NCLAT determined that the NCLT cannot use Section 60(5) of the IBC to exercise its jurisdiction over the contractual dispute between the Appellant (Corporation) and the Corporate Debtor, and it observed that if a contract is terminated for reasons unrelated to the corporate debtor’s insolvency, the adjudicating authority’s jurisdiction

Given that all the DRTs and DRAT in Delhi were inoperative, the Petitioner moved the securitization application in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.  The Court directed the transfer of proceedings  from DRT-I Delhi  to DRT, Jaipur, and noted that “Transfer of proceedings…to a functional DRT would be consistent with this

Three former directors of a company (the “Petitioners”) filed writ petitions with the High Court challenging a show-cause notice(“SCN”) and order issued by Respondent-Bank designating the Petitioners as willful defaulters which were consequently allowed. The Bench was headed by Makarand Subhash Karnik, N. J. Jamadar. The document mentioned that the Respondent

A case of an obligation to notify the transferor party was filed in the NCLT. The issue raised was that the Applicant companies that are proposing the merger of wholly owned subsidies by absorbing them in its holding under Sec. 230-232 of the Companies Act, should serve notices accompanied by

In a complaint filed on behalf of Zippigo Pharma (Informant) in the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the issue was against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. and 16 other pharmaceutical companies (‘OPs’) for purported infringement of Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The case came before the

The Chennai NCLAT bench composed of Justice M. Venugopal and Learned Kanthi Narahari rejected an appeal preferred by the corporate debtor (‘Appellant’) against the order of NCLT which permitted an insolvency petition filed by the financial creditor (‘Respondent’), on the ground of limitation by observing that a new cause of

The Hon’ble Delhi HC ordered the parties to maintain the status quo until the Petitioner’s appeal and stay application was taken up by the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA and partially granted the Petitioner’s appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, including provisionally attaching the Petitioner’s retirement

The National Company Law Tribunal determined that the Financial Creditor’s application to begin the insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, according to Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, was sustainable. The Applicant in the instant case contended that in conformity with the Agreement, by which the Corporate

The Hon’ble Supreme Court brushed aside the appeal against the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s order which rejected the suit filed by Corporate Debtor’s Guarantor (the Appellant).  The Hon’ble Apex Court remarked that –  (i) a Financial Creditor and Respondent had executed an assignment agreement after the Corporate Debtor’s approved resolution

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal NCLAT in New Delhi reiterated that the Bar Council of India is not an “enterprise” and upheld the orders of the Competition Commission of India. NCLAT also dismissed an accusation of abuse of dominance, and affirmed CCI’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s complaint that claimed

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT- Chandigarh) while hearing  applications against the denial of claims by a Resolution Professional (RP) directed it to consider the claims submitted by the Applicants. The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that “once it is shown that the claim of the applicant is backed by an award passed

The Mumbai NCLT bench presided by Learned Ashok Kumar Borah and Learned Shyam Babu Gautam allowed the insolvency petition as filed by the financial creditor (‘Petitioner’) which sought the initiation of CIRP of the debtors (‘Respondent’). The bench on finding that the respondents have defaulted to honour the loan amount

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal that challenged the NCLT order that granted a week to the objectors to file their objections while considering an application of the pre-packaged insolvency resolution process (‘PPIRP’) under section 54C of the IBC; as a result, the NCLT was not in error. Noting that serious

The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal overturned NCLT’s decision to deny the Financial Creditor’s assignee’s (Appellant’s) request to withdraw the Corporate Debtor’s CIRP and lift the suspension of CoC’s operation and instructed NCLT to reinstate the request and issue new orders based on the application’s merits. The Appellant had

The SEBI bench presided by Ms Madhabi Puri Buch barred 6 directors of a company (‘Noticee’) from getting into the securities market for publishing inflated, false and misleading financial results and hence, infringing the PFUTP regulations, the bench opined that the most essential document for any stakeholder or the investor

National Company Law Tribunal keeping in view the situation arising due to the nationwide lockdown owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the best interests of the Exchequer’s revenue, allowed the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & G.S.T.’s (the Applicant) request for delay condonation in approaching the RP to submit their

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that since it has been significantly proven that there are exceptional circumstances, such as the ongoing legal proceedings, the imposition of a nationwide lockdown, a change in RP, the calling of fresh expressions of interest, and the nature of the corporate debtor’s business, which  admittedly is

In a complaint filed, OP, a pharmaceutical and medical equipment distributor was accused of abusing its dominating position in the State of MP when a government agency awarded a contract, in violation of Sec. 4 of the Competition Act. CCI dismissed the allegation mentioned. The CCI emphasized that the submission

A petition for oppression-mismanagement was filed in NCLT by the shareholders of the Company on behalf of the Company’s Board of Directors. An issue of Related Party Transactions (RPT) undertaken by the Respondent Company without the Company’s Board of Directors or shareholder’s permit was raised. The bench was headed by

In an appeal filed by a lessor (‘Applicant’), the request was raised to initiate contempt proceedings against the members of the Committee of Creditors and Resolution professional (‘Respondents’) of the Corporate Debtor for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Tribunal’s order directing them to pay rent arrear dues to the

A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. at the Hon’ble Madras High Court rejected the Petitioner’s (an electricity distributing company) argument, that a company that any government substantially owns may not be complained against or have insolvency proceedings brought against it before the NCLT.  The

A Petition was filed involving Mr. Azim Premji and India Awake for Transparency (NGO) in the Madras High Court, wherein the issue was the cancellation of a license by the Regional Director of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) that was issued to the NGO. HC noted that Representatives of

In the case of an anti-competitive agreement filed on behalf of Future Coupon (Informant) in the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the issue was against Amazon that it failed to notify the details of its combination as per Sec. 6(2) of the Competition Act. The case came before the Coram

Among other things, SEBI clarified in an Informal Guidance to a Portfolio Manager that the existing legislative framework governing portfolio managers prohibits advice or investment in offshore shares and securities that are neither listed on a recognised stock exchange(s) in India nor seek to do so. The SEBI (Informal Guidance)

The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the appeals that challenged the NCLT order. The impugned order had rejectin the Appellants’ request for direction against RP to accept the resolution plan they had proposed and present it to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) alongside the NCLT order directing

In re New Rajamandri Electronics (GST AAR Karnataka), the records under examination indicated that the immediate application was submitted online on September 24, 2021, and that it raised the issue of whether GST is applicable to the free security deposit. The ruling was passed by M.P. Ravi Prasad and Kiran

The appeal was filed in the Supreme Court regarding the establishment of the CIRP costs, including fees to be paid to the Resolution Professional merely on an ad hoc basis. The matter was decided by a division bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. NCLT admitted the Corporate

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal overturned the National Company Law Tribunal  NCLT order, which held, among other things, that Clause 12 of Schedule 1 of the Liquidation Process Regulations does not give the Liquidator any discretion to cancel the auction, but clarified that in the present instance, the Liquidator

A Division bench of Telangana HC comprising of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Chillakur Sumalatha allowed the corporate debtor’s writ seeking quashing of assessment notices by the Income Tax (“IT”) Department for the assessment year covered under NCLT’s approved resolution plan/the plan. The Petitioner alongside the resolution applicant contended that

In a writ filed by the Director of a Company (Petitioner) to the High Court of Karnataka, the issue was the notice and complaint issued against directors under Sec.s 16(1) and Sec. 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999(FEMA), which was claimed to be not valid. The case came

The NCLAT permitted Resolution Applicants to submit their updated resolution plan, and ordered the CoC to deliberate and consider all those plans in order to prevent the Corporate Debtor from entering liquidation. The Tribunal further stated that “The intent of ‘I &B’ is to maximise the assets of the Corporate

The National Company Law Tribunal at New Delhi (NCLAT) noted that when a corporate debtor is in the IBC liquidation stage, the seizure or attachment of its accounts under the State Act cannot constitute an impediment; it observed that  “At the stage of liquidation, the liquidator would be duty bound