Unregistered profit-sharing agreements cannot justify occupation of corporate debtor premises during CIRP; repossession by the Resolution Professional...
NCLAT upheld recall of the loan facilities under the material adverse effect clause, holding that the lender could contractually form the opinion that the arrest of a personal guarantor and criminal investigation were likely to affect performance, so the recall was valid. It also held that the Section 7 applications were maintainable despite a pending challenge to the arbitral award and parallel execution, because the pleaded default began on failure to repay after recall and continued thereafter; insolvency proceedings are not barred merely because recovery steps were also taken. The tribunal further held that the arbitral award gave rise to a fresh limitation period, so the application filed within three years was not time-barred.
NCLAT upheld recall of the loan facilities under the material adverse effect clause, holding that the lender could contractually form the opinion that the arrest of a personal guarantor and criminal investigation were likely to affect performance, so the recall was valid. It also held that the Section 7 applications were maintainable despite a pending challenge to the arbitral award and parallel execution, because the pleaded default began on failure to repay after recall and continued thereafter; insolvency proceedings are not barred merely because recovery steps were also taken. The tribunal further held that the arbitral award gave rise to a fresh limitation period, so the application filed within three years was not time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.