Authorised Representative Can Be Replaced By Following Procedure Provided Under Regulation 16(3A) Of CIRP Regulations: NCLAT
2 months ago

Authorised Representative Can Be Replaced By Following Procedure Provided Under Regulation 16(3A) Of CIRP Regulations: NCLAT

Live Law  

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Barun Mita and Mr. Arun Baroka has held that the Authorised Representative can be replaced by following the procedure engrafted under Regulation 16 of the CIRP Regulations therefore the application of an individual homebuyer seeking replacement of the Authorised Representative before the Adjudicating Authority cannot be entertained. Subsequently, the appellant filed an IA seeking replacement of the Authorised Representative which came to be rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that procedure provided under Regulation 16 of the CIRP Regulations was not followed. Contentions: The appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in not replacing the authorised representative on the ground that such application on behalf of a single homebuyer is not maintainable. It also referred to Regulation 16A of the “CIRP Regulations” and observed that an Authorised Representative is chosen based on the preference of the majority of financial creditors.

Appeal Regulation Regulations Application Tribunal Date Filed Replacement Appellant Creditors Representative Authorised Cirp Financial Creditors Cirp Regulations  filed  date  tribunal  appeal  cirp  mr  regulation  nclat  following  application  appellant  provided  procedure  regulations  replacement  replaced  authorised  representative

History of this topic

NCLAT New Delhi: RERA Has Locus To Appeal Against CIRP Initiation Order And Is An “Aggrieved Person” U/S 61 Of IBC
1 year, 2 months ago

NCLAT New Delhi: RERA Has Locus To Appeal Against CIRP Initiation Order And Is An “Aggrieved Person” U/S 61 Of IBC

Live Law  

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Barun Mitra has held that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority has locus to challenge Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiation Order in Real Estate Insolvency in appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before NCLAT. Contentions of the Parties: RERA contended that the CIRP …

NCLAT Delhi: Benefit Under Section 17 Of Limitation Act Is Not Available When Fraud Was Played In Creditor Company And Not In Company Of Corporate Debtor
1 year, 4 months ago

NCLAT Delhi: Benefit Under Section 17 Of Limitation Act Is Not Available When Fraud Was Played In Creditor Company And Not In Company Of Corporate Debtor

Live Law  

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr Barun Mitra and Mr Arun Baroka has rejected an appeal and held that benefits under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing a belated claim is not available when the fraud was played in the Creditor Company and not in the company of the …

Adjudicating Authority Can Invoke Inherent Powers To Replace The Liquidator: NCLAT
2 years, 5 months ago

Adjudicating Authority Can Invoke Inherent Powers To Replace The Liquidator: NCLAT

Live Law  

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Dr. Alok Srivastava and Mr. Barun Mitra, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Subrata Maity v Mr. Amit C. Poddar & Ors., has held that the Adjudicating Authority can invoke its inherent powers to replace the Liquidator and to do substantial justice. The Adjudicating Authority vide its …

NCLAT Held That RP Should Investigate The Veracity And Genuineness Of Claims In The Light Of Provisions Of IBC And Regulations 13 And 14 Of CIRP Regulations
2 years, 6 months ago

NCLAT Held That RP Should Investigate The Veracity And Genuineness Of Claims In The Light Of Provisions Of IBC And Regulations 13 And 14 Of CIRP Regulations

Live Law  

In a significant development, while setting aside the order dated 17.06.2020 of Ld.' NCLT dismissed the application of the P.M. Ltd., having considered various documents submitted by New Hind Silk House Private Limited regarding its claim along with Form C and held that RP has considered and screened all the documents properly as per the provisions of IBC, and CIRP …

Threshold Of Rs.1 Crore Is Required For Initiation of CIRP, Even If The Cause Of Action Arises Out Of Failure Of The Consent Terms Of The Earlier Section 7 Application: NCLAT
2 years, 10 months ago

Threshold Of Rs.1 Crore Is Required For Initiation of CIRP, Even If The Cause Of Action Arises Out Of Failure Of The Consent Terms Of The Earlier Section 7 Application: NCLAT

Live Law  

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Ms. Shreesha Merla in the case of Prafulla Purushottamrao Gadge v. Narayan Mangal held that an application filed after 24.03.2020 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 below the threshold of Rs. Brief Facts The Financial Creditor filed an application under Section 7 of IBC …

Discover Related