TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Corporate Debt Resolution: Indiabulls Housing Finance Settles IBC Appeals with Rs. 31.17 Crore Payment Agreement</h1> <h3>Basant Sharma Versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Ors. And Shreesh Asthana Versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Ors.</h3> NCLAT disposed of appeals challenging IBC application by Indiabulls Housing Finance against two corporate debtors. Parties reached settlement, with ... Admission of Application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 - default in repayment exceeding Rs. 260 crore - HELD THAT:- In terms of the submissions the parties to the lis, may file an appropriate application in terms of the Provisions of the Code and the Regulations before the Tribunal for obtaining an order of settlement. Till the said order is passed, the interim order passed in these appeals shall continue - both these appeals are hereby disposed off as having become infructuous and the pending IA’s, if any, stands closed. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, disposed of two appeals-CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1118 and 1120 of 2024-filed by the Suspended Directors of Primcomm Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Essel Home Pvt. Ltd., respectively. Both appeals challenged the admission of applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) filed by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. for default in repayment exceeding Rs. 260 crore.The Tribunal noted that the parties had reconciled accounts and reached a settlement, with the Corporate Debtors agreeing to pay Rs. 31.17 crore in full and final settlement, and the Respondent agreeing to issue a no due certificate and return original sale deeds held as mortgage. Counsel for the appellant referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in *Glas Trust Company LLC vs. Byju Raveendran & Ors.* (2025) 3 SCC 625, emphasizing that parties must seek settlement orders under Section 12A read with Regulation 30 of the CIRP Regulations.Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appeals had become 'infructuous' and directed the parties to file appropriate applications before the Tribunal under the Code and Regulations for settlement approval. The interim orders were to continue until such settlement orders were passed. All pending interlocutory applications were closed, and the appeals were disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
