Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 Archives (2024)

First Resolution Plan has been approved – Ms. Mamta Binani RP of Synergies-Dooray Automative Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited – NCLT Hyderabad

I. Case Reference Case Citation : [2017] ibclaw.in 23 NCLT Case Name : Ms. Mamta Binani RP of Synergies-Dooray Automative […]

First Resolution Plan has been approved – Ms. Mamta Binani RP of Synergies-Dooray Automative Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited – NCLT Hyderabad Read Post »

IDBIBankLimitedVs.LancoInfratechLimited – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

I. Case Reference CaseCitation : (2017) ibclaw.in 47 NCLT CaseName : IDBIBankLimitedVs.LancoInfratechLimited FinancialCreditor : IDBIBankLimited CorporateDebtor : LancoInfratechLimited AppealNo. :

IDBIBankLimitedVs.LancoInfratechLimited – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

I. Case Reference Case Citation : (2017) ibclaw.in 67 NCLAT Case Name : Anil Mahindroo & Anr Vs. Earth Iconic

M/s. Aruna Hotels Limited Vs. Mr. N. Krishnan – NCLAT New Delhi

I. Case Reference Case Citation : (2017) ibclaw.in 66 NCLAT Case Name : M/s. Aruna Hotels Limited Vs. Mr. N.

M/s. Aruna Hotels Limited Vs. Mr. N. Krishnan – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Synergies-Dooray Automative Limited – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

I. Case Reference Case Citation : [2017] ibclaw.in 22 NCLT Case Name : Synergies-Dooray Automative Limited Corporate Debtor : Synergies-Dooray

Synergies-Dooray Automative Limited – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Whether there is no need to appoint Interim Resolution Professional on the same day on which date admission order is passed and it can be passed within 14 days of the admission of the Applications?- State Bank of India Vs. Essar Steels India Ltd.-NCLT Ahmedabad Bench

NCLT held that no doubt, a reading of Sections 13, 14, 15 and 16 (1) of the Code goes to show that Adjudicating Authority need not appoint the Interim Resolution Professional on the same day on which Application under Section 7, 9 or 10 is admitted. But, there is no provision which bars the Adjudicating Authority from appointing Interim Resolution Professional on the same day on which the admission order was passed and simultaneously with the admission order. In an application filed under Section 9, in case if the Operational Creditor did not give the name of the IRP, then the Adjudicating Authority, availing the 14 days’ time provided under Section 16(1), can appoint the Interim Resolution Professional within 14 days from the date of admission order. Suppose in a given case there is some omission in the Written Communication or there is some difficulty in the appointment of the recommended IRP, in such Cases the Adjudicating Authority may appoint IRP even in an application under Section 7 not on the date of order of admission, but on a subsequent date, but before 14 days from the date of admission. Therefore, there must be facts and circ*mstances that warrant the Adjudicating Authority to defer the appointment of IRP in an application filed under Section 7 of the Code. In the case on hand, no such circ*mstance exists which warrant deferring the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional to some other date but not on the date of admission order. No two stages or no two separate hearings are contemplated under the Code, namely, the first stage is admission and the second stage is appointment of Interim Resolution Professional. The object of the Code is to complete the entire process in a time bound programme. When such is the object of the Code, without any compelling circ*mstances, there is no need to defer the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional only to give an opportunity to the Corporate Debtor to agitate the decision of this Adjudicating Authority twice in two Appeals. The Corporate Debtor is entitled to prefer an Appeal against the order of admission and also against the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional.

Whether there is no need to appoint Interim Resolution Professional on the same day on which date admission order is passed and it can be passed within 14 days of the admission of the Applications?- State Bank of India Vs. Essar Steels India Ltd.-NCLT Ahmedabad Bench Read Post »

I. Case Reference Case Citation : [2017] ibclaw.in 39 NCLAT Case Name : S3 Electrical & Electronics Private Limited Vs.