Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of a Section 9 insolvency application. The operational creditor's default dates (03.05.2020, 15.08.2020, and 01.01.2021) fell within the Section 10A prohibited period under IBC. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Ramesh Kymal, the tribunal held that defaults occurring during the specified COVID-19 period cannot form the basis for initiating corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that the creditor bore the responsibility to amend default dates if required, and the adjudicating authority was not obligated to modify dates sua sponte. Consequently, the Section 9 application was deemed non-maintainable, and the appeal was dismissed without merit.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of a Section 9 insolvency application. The operational creditor's default dates (03.05.2020, 15.08.2020, and 01.01.2021) fell within the Section 10A prohibited period under IBC. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Ramesh Kymal, the tribunal held that defaults occurring during the specified COVID-19 period cannot form the basis for initiating corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that the creditor bore the responsibility to amend default dates if required, and the adjudicating authority was not obligated to modify dates sua sponte. Consequently, the Section 9 application was deemed non-maintainable, and the appeal was dismissed without merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.