Topic
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) hears appeals against orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Companies Act, 2013.
The NCLAT ruled that orders dismissing contempt petitions are not appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the provision only permits appeals against orders punishing for contempt. This bars aggrieved parties from challenging dismissal of contempt proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal.
The Supreme Court ruled that limitation for appeals under Section 62 IBC starts from the NCLAT order date, not receipt of the certified copy. A delay in obtaining the copy cannot be excused if the appeal is filed after limitation has commenced, impacting parties challenging NCLAT rulings.
The NCLAT Chennai Bench held ESI contributions are trust assets excluded from liquidation estate under IBC Sec 36(4)(a)(i), overturning a plan paying only 1% of the claim and affirming priority for employees' statutory dues in insolvency.
NCLAT Chennai held that at the first-motion stage of a scheme merger under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act 2013, tribunals cannot reject the scheme merely because shareholders and creditors have not yet voted; the matter must proceed to their approval. The ruling clarifies that premature tribunal interference undermines the statutory merger process and affects companies seeking amalgamations.
NCLAT Chennai held that the Committee of Creditors may replace a Resolution Professional under Section 22 of the IBC provided the replacement is not contrary to the Code, expunging adverse findings against the former RP and remitting his fee claim to the NCLT for adjudication.
The NCLAT held that a fraud-initiation claim under Section 65 IBC must be raised before the Adjudicating Authority and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, forcing parties to raise such allegations at the CIRP stage to avoid belated challenges.
NCLAT held that the IBBI Liquidation Process (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2025 apply prospectively only and cannot affect liquidation already started under the earlier regime. The ruling shields ongoing liquidation from retrospective changes, impacting creditors, liquidators and purchasers.
The NCLAT Principal Bench ruled that Section 60(2) IBC mandates personal guarantor insolvency proceedings to be heard by the same NCLT bench adjudicating the corporate debtor's CIRP. The tribunal upheld the New Delhi Principal Bench's refusal to transfer a guarantor's case to Chandigarh, confirming that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the bench seized of the main corporate insolvency process.
NCLAT quashed NCLT orders directing ED and CBI investigations under Section 213(b) without recording satisfaction of statutory prerequisites or hearing affected parties, holding that procedural safeguards are mandatory before ordering corporate investigations.
The NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority possesses residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to issue consequential directions necessary for implementing a going concern sale during liquidation. The tribunal extended the 'clean slate' doctrine - typically applied in resolution plans - to liquidation proceedings, ensuring that a successful auction purchaser receives the corporate debtor's assets free from encumbrances. This decision clarifies the AA's powers to facilitate liquidation sales and protects buyers from legacy claims, impacting liquidators, successful bidders, and secured creditors.
NCLAT ruled that under Section 61(2) IBC an appeal must be filed within 30 days and only a 15-day condonable period is allowed. Delays beyond 15 days, even with justified reasons, will be rejected, compelling appellants such as home-buyers to act promptly.
The NCLAT ruled that a company struck off but still possessing assets cannot be merely dissolved; it must be restored and then wound up under the Companies Act. This clarifies that restoration claims require a winding-up proceeding, affecting shareholders and creditors of dormant firms.
The NCLAT held that, under Section 60(5) of the IBC, the adjudicating authority can issue personal directions to suspended directors of a debtor to locate and recover leased electric vehicles. This expands the tools available to resolution professionals during a CIRP.
NCLAT ruled that a contribution order under Section 14 of the IBC can be imposed without a prior Section 66 finding, and that a Section 74 direction is only a reference now rendered moot by amendment. This means directors and resolution professionals may be liable for contributions during the moratorium even absent a default finding.
NCLAT upheld NCLT’s ruling that a 100% share transfer and property transfer were illegal for non-compliance with mandatory deed requirements under Section 56(1) Companies Act. The decision underscores the strict procedural compliance needed for share transfers to be legally valid.