1. The court held that the timelines are of great significance in the I&B Code. The filing of the Appeal within 30 days from the date of order is for all concerned who feel aggrieved by the order. Hence, limitation shall commence from the date when order is passed and shall not depend on the date when Appellant came to know of the order.
Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation v. Reliance Infratel Ltd. & Anr.Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1260 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4442 of 2023
2. The court held that the commercial wisdom of the parties of the scheme who have taken an informed decisions on the scheme is required to be respected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, being in summary proceeding, is neither expected to have the requisite expertise nor jurisdiction to go into realm of commercial wisdom of the members and the creditors of the concerned companies. On the other hand, if the scheme is against the public interest, then the Tribunal is not to approve such scheme.
Jatinder Singh Ahuja v. M/s. TATA Steel LimitedCompany Appeal (AT) 132 of 2021 & Company Appeal (AT) 150 & 151 of 2021
3. The court held that the scope and jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority being summary in nature, it is distinctly not as extensive as that of a civil court to enquire into disputes arising out of MoUs and related specific performance which have been agitated in the IA. Allowing such meritless and unscrupulous litigation would logically entail derailing the insolvency resolution process which goes against the twin objectives of the IBC of maximization of the value of assets and time-bound insolvency resolution.
Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 742 of 2023
4. The court held that the proceeding which undertook in the liquidation proceedings cannot be ignored nor can be washed out only on the ground that in the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor the name of the Appellant was reflected.
Ethenic Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. K.G. Somani,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1305 of 2023
5. The court held that when the Resolution Plan of the Appellant has not been approved and there is no other Resolution Plan in the CIRP, we are of the view that no infirmity can be found in the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing for liquidation.
Kamlesh Mehta v. Mirage Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. & OrsCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1222 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4284 of 2023
6. The court held that for proving the ingredient of Section 65 there has to be adequate pleadings and findings.
Amour Infrastructure LLP v. Digital Integrated Technologies Pvt. Ltd.Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 884 of 2022
7. The court held that the well settled objective of the IBC is to revive the Corporate Debtor and liquidation is the last resort.
Gayatri Polyrub Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Kohli & Anr.Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.650 & 657 of 2023
[Written by Kumar Aditya (email@example.com)]