Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The power envisaged under Section 34(4)(b) of the IBC is a power to recommend the replacement of the particular Resolution Professional on facts specific to that individual and is not a general power that could be exercised by the IBBI for issuing the Circular.
“Despite the contentions raised by the Appellant, Appellant entered into settlement with the Operational Creditor to discharge his dues, which has been filed by an Affidavit by the Appellant as well as Respondent.”
“Non-admission of the claim of the Appellant in liquidation proceeding shall not preclude it from taking such steps as available in law for realisation of its claim which arose after liquidation commencement date.”
“For maintaining an application for default of another Financial Creditor, the essential ingredients to be fulfilled by the Applicant is that the Applicant has to be a Financial Creditor on its own facts.”
The appellant relying on Tottempudi Salalith v. State Bank of India, (2024) 1 SCC 24, contended that the limitation for filing Section 95 IBC application in the present case must be treated as 12 years and hence the application filed was not barred by time.
The NCLAT set aside Adjudicating Authority’s order initiating CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.