Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) allowed distribution of
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench: The Coram of H.V. Subba Rao, Judicial Member and Chandra Bhan Singh, Technical Member directed that
“The residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT cannot be invoked if the termination of a contract is based on grounds unrelated to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.”
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai- The Coram of Ashok Kumar Borah, Judicial Member, and Shyam Babu Gautam, Technical Member while
by Love Kumar Gupta† and Angad Sandhu††
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)- The Coram of Justice Jarat Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member), and Alok
Supreme Court of India: The Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., observed that, “Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction or power to
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Jarat Kumar Jain, Judicial Member and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra, Technical Member
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): The Coram of H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Chandra Bhan Singh (Technical Member) while allowing the
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Venugopal M (Judicial Member) and V.P. Singh (Technical Member) while setting aside
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M R Shah, JJ., observed that, Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority
National Company Law Tribunal, NCLT Mumbai: Coram of Suchitra Kanuparthi, Judicial Member and Chandra Bhan Singh, Technical Member, observed that, “…a Judicial
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): Coram of H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Chandra Bhan Singh (Technical Member) held that ‘Working Capital’
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Division Bench of Justice Anant Bijay Singh, Judicial Member and Shreesha Merla, Technical Member held
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Division Bench of Justice Venugopal M. (Judicial Member) and V.P. Singh (Technical Member) dismissed an
“In all future cases, NCLT would have to be wary of setting aside valid contractual terminations which would merely dilute the value of the corporate debtor, and not push it to its corporate death by virtue of it being the corporate debtor‘s sole contract.”
“A Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a “civil sheep” in a “criminal wolf’s” clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court in cheque bouncing cases.”
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench: The Coram of Janab Mohammed Ajmal (Judicial Member) and V. Nallasenapathy (Technical Member), decided the issue
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Division Bench of Venugopal M (Judicial Member) and Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) held that a
