Judgements

NCLAT, held that Section 20(2)(b) of the Code authorizes the RP to only re-enter into such contracts, concerning the corporate debtor, which were entered into before the commencement of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). In this case, the NCLAT, New Delhi held that the RP/interim resolution professional (IRP) did not have the power to enter into a new contract for insurance, which was at a higher premium rate without the authorization of the CoC.

Ibcode

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   
Forgot password? Click here to reset
New User? Click here to register

Related Posts

Judgements

Dominant purpose of the IBC is revival of the Corporate Debtor and making it an on­going concern -Opinion expressed by the CoC after due deliberations in the meetings through voting, as per voting shares, is the collective business decision and that the decision of the CoC’s ‘commercial wisdom’ is non­ justiciable, except on limited grounds as are available for challenge under Section 30(2) or Section 61(3) of the IBC – Under Section 61(3)(ii) of the IBC, an appeal would be tenable if there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the RP during the corporate insolvency resolution period – Scope of the words ‘material irregularity’, as are found in Section 115 of the CPC, 1908

Ibcode
Judgements

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 7 – Insolvency Resolution – A requirement only needs to be assessed at the threshold while admitting the petition. Hence, if subsequent to the admission, withdrawal applications are preferred and the 10 per cent threshold is reduced, it shall not affect the maintainability of the original petition.

Ibcode