NCLT dismisses Sec.9 application under IBC filed by a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore (“applicant/operational creditor”) seeking to initiate CIRP against corporate debtor/respondent by a foreign arbitral award. Respondent contended that arbitral award cannot form the foundation of CIRP and NCLT is not empowered to execute the foreign

SEBI dismissed the SCN issued against the entity for trading in the Company’s stock while in possession of its UPSI, acknowledging that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment that the entity had access to the UPSI and to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard; Remarked that “…the

Upon finding that the Entity (undergoing liquidation) was the subject of the adjudication proceedings for an alleged allotment of shares by the conversion of warrants made by the Entity and other promoter entities without the infusion of funds from preferential allottees, SEBI dismissed the adjudication proceedings. Commented that the IBC’s

An appeal was filed by the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor in the matter of commercial wisdom of CoC. The issue was whether the additional claims with respect to the time-barred debt can be entertained or not. The case was decided by Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson, Justice Jarat Kumar

An appeal was made by a Resolution Professional before the NCLAT seeking quashing of the NCLT order dismissing the Appellant’s plea to restore the possession of a sub-leased portion on account of the lease deed being void ab initio. The bench comprised Justice Jarat Kumar Jain and Dr. Ashok Kumar

According to National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regulations, the assets whose ownership is subject to resolution by the Court or Authority would be included in the Corporate Debtor’s Liquidation Estate. The Hon’ble NCLT ruled that the assets which are subject to the determination of ownership by the Court or Authority

NCLAT bench headed by Justice A.B. Singh and Ms Shreesha Merla held that after payment of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), the Appellant/bidder cannot be allowed to forfeit his bid and subsequently claim any refund on account of the bid being a conditional offer. NCLAT observed that the Liquidator made it

In a writ filed by the Director and Promoter of a Company (“Petitioner”), the question raised before the division bench constituting of Chief Justice S.C. Sharma and Justice N. Tukaramji of Telangana HC was the validity of RBI circular dated 01.07.2016, titled “Reserve Bank of India (Frauds – Classification and

An appeal was filed in NCLAT for the order given by NCLT for admitting the application filed by a financial Creditor (Respondent) against Corporate Debtor (Appellant) and initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The issue was raised by the Suspended Director when he came to know about the default

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT) validated the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ruling quashing the demand notice for pending property tax dues issued by the Appellant (a Municipality) to the Auction-purchaser (‘Respondent’) concerning a property sold by the Corporate Debtor’s liquidator. The Appellate Authority ordained that “The auction-purchaser cannot

The Hon’ble NCLAT accepted appeals against the NCLT decision denying the appellant’s insolvency application because the appellant was ineligible under IBC Section 29(A)(e) and the appellant is attempting to access the corporate debtor’s assets through a backdoor by posing as an MSME. The Appellant had contested the NCLT’s decision to

In an appeal decided by a bench of Justice A.B. Singh and Ms Shreesha Merla, NCLAT rejected the appeal against the order of NCLT whereby the Adjudicating Authority excluded 87 days from the total duration of 180 days of the CIRP period. The Appellant claimed that IRP submitted the exclusion

SEBI penalized Titan employees (‘noticees’) for an amount of INR 1 Lakh as they failed to disclose the trade as entered into in excess of INR 10 Lakh, which resulted in the infringement of PIT regulations. The bench noted that-(i) On several incidents, the noticees had traded in the shares

In a writ filed by the Director (“Petitioner”) of a company, the question was on the liability of the Petitioner in the issuing of disputed checks after he had ceased to be the Director of the accused business, was raised before the bench constituting Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri of Delhi

Given that the contested order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had legal flaws, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside the same, requiring that all Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings CIRP initiation applications filed by allottees of the same project against the same Corporate Debtor (real estate developer)

The Telangana High Court upheld the Single Judge’s ruling supporting the MCA’s move to direct SFIO to conduct an inquiry into the business dealings of Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. (the “Appellant”). The decision was made in light of the fact that the case is still under investigation and that the

The Hon’ble NCLAT, Chennai Bench overturned the NCLT’s decision that denied the appellant’s claim based on a corporate guarantee which stated that the corporate debtor had provided for money borrowed by a subsidiary (the Borrower) in question. Upon concluding that the Corporate Guarantee’s existence is undisputed in reality or in

A review application was filed by SEBI to SAT requesting a review of the orders based on two grounds: that there was an error that was obvious from the record and that, as a result, the case qualified for the use of the review authority granted by Sec. 15U of

While adjudicating a Section 9 application filed by the Operational Creditor, the National Company Law Tribunal Delhi denied a request for the Corporate Debtor to pay back a Sales Tax Demand as an “Operational Debt”. The Hon’ble NCLT observed that the entire claim of the Operational Creditor is based on

Punjab & Haryana HC rejected a plea, filed by one of the Directors (‘Petitioner’) of Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (‘ACCSL’) seeking regular bail in a complaint case alleging fund mobilization. The order was conceded by Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta. The HC observed that pursuant to MCA orders issued in