The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Mr. Hemang Phophalia v. The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited and Another (decided on September 05, 2019) has held that a creditor can file an application requiring the restoration of the name of a dissolved/struck-off company in the register of companies for initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution […]
The Supreme Court in M/s. Canara Nidhi Limited v. M. Shashikala and Others (decided on September 23, 2019) held that in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), additional evidence can be permitted to be adduced only in exceptional circumstances. FACTS M/s. Canara Nidhi Limited (“Appellant”) is a financial institution […]
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has, in the case of Hero Fincorp Limited v. Rave Scans Private Limited and Others (dated September 17, 2019) held that dissenting financial creditors cannot be discriminated against in a resolution plan. FACTS Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) was initiated against Rave Scans Private Limited (“Rave Scans”) on […]
In the recent judgment of Mr. Ashish Mahendrakar v. State of Maharashtra and Others (decided on September 13, 2019), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court declared that an inter-corporate deposit/loan, that is, a loan advanced/deposit made by a company with another company would not amount to a “deposit” within the meaning and for the purpose of […]
The Supreme Court in the case of Brilliant Alloys Private Limited v. Mr. S. Rajagopal and Others (decided on December 14, 2018) held that the application for corporate insolvency resolution process can be withdrawn even after issuance of invitation for expression of interest. FACTS The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLT”) on September 28, 2017 […]
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Lalit Mishra and Others v. Sharon Bio Medicine Limited and Others (decided on December 19, 2018) held that a resolution plan that discharged the liability of the corporate debtor to pay off its personal guarantors who were also the promoters was not discriminatory in nature. FACTS By […]
