Tag: IBC
Collective action by all financial creditors not a prerequisite to file an application under Section 95 of the I&B code
Dheeraj Wadhawan v. Union Bank of India & Anr.[1] NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi Introduction and Facts of the Case The present case, which was decided by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on
Insights on the Proposed Amendments on MSME Registration and Disclosure under CIRP
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) released a discussion paper on 23rd August, 2024, seeking comments on proposed changes to the Regulation 36 of CIRP Regulations. We have summarized our views and recommendations
Whether the restructuring process as contemplated in the Notification dated 29th May 2015 issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) is directory or mandatory.
Introduction The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a recent landmark decision passed vide Order dated 01.08.2024 in the matter of Pro Knits v. Board of Directors of Canara Bank[i], addressed a crucial issue regarding
An Application filed under Section 65 of the Code is maintainable after the Applications under Section 7,9 or 10 are filed, and not necessarily only after admission: Hon’ble NCLAT, New Delhi
Introduction: The Hon’ble NCLAT in a significant ruling, recently addressed a crucial issue in insolvency jurisprudence vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 in the matter of Devashree Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs Aravali Cylinders Pvt.
NCLAT’s Authoritative Interpretation of Prior Approval under Section 33(5) of the I&B Code
Introduction On May 31, 2024, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a significant judgment in the matter of Slimline Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Jigar Bhatt. The ruling, encapsulated
Treatment of EPFO Dues (7A, 7Q and 14B of EPF Act) in Liquidation: Exclusion under IBC Section 36(4)(a)(iii) and Non-Applicability of Section 53(1)
Introduction: In the case of Mr. Anuj Bajpai vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation & Ors.[i], Liquidator submitted that Contribution under Section 7A should have been treated in accordance with Section 36(4) of the Code and,
- Arbitration and Conciliation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy Code – Public Announcements
- Civil
- Commercial litigation
- Commercial/Corporate
- Criminal
- Cyber Law
- Debt Recovery
- Food
- IL News
- Infrastructure
- Insolvency & Bankruptcy
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property Rights
- International
- Labour
- Law
- Medico-Legal
- Negotiable Instrument
- NRI Laws
- Policy
- Power
- Real Estate
- Tax