The appeal challenged the maintainability of an application ...

Insolvency refund: NCLAT allows Rs. 25 lakh refund, rejects double benefit for closed CIRP.

Case Laws IBC

November 12, 2024

The appeal challenged the maintainability of an application filed u/s 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking refund of an amount deposited as part of a settlement under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The key points are: The CIRP of one corporate debtor (JDECL) was closed by allowing an application u/s 12A after payment of its entire debt of Rs. 3 crores. The MoU required payment of Rs. 25 lakhs for approval of the resolution plan for the other corporate debtor (UCL), but the plan was not approved. The NCLAT held that the application u/s 60(5)(c) was maintainable as it related to the insolvency resolution process. However, the prayer for refund of Rs. 3 crores paid for closing JDECL's CIRP was rejected as it would amount to double benefit. The NCLAT allowed refund of Rs. 25 lakhs paid for UCL's resolution plan, modifying the adjudicating authority's order to that extent.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The appeal challenged the maintainability of an application ...

Insolvency refund: NCLAT allows Rs. 25 lakh refund, rejects double benefit for closed CIRP.

Case Laws IBC

November 12, 2024

You may also like:

The Interest Equalisation Scheme (IES) for Pre and Post shipment Rupee Export Credit has been extended for three months beyond 30th September 2024, until 31st December...

Contravention of Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - receiving foreign exchange payments in 1996-97 through fake export documents...

Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to adjudicate upon a closure notice issued prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process...

Gratuity exemption u/s Section 10(10)(iii) - exemption limit raised to ₹ 25 lakhs

Appellate Tribunal reduced penalty imposed on company u/s 50 of FERA, 1973 from Rs.2 crores to Rs.2.5 lakhs for contravention regarding two foreign exchange remittances...

Refund claim of amount deposited during investigation - the appellant is entitled to refund with interest under Section 35 FF, for which no limitation is applicable. The...

Rejection of declared transaction value under Valuation Rule 12, re-determination of value under Valuation Rules 4-9. Commissioner followed Rule 9, adopted actual values...

Refund claim u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 was partially allowed. Refund of Rs. 20,52,143/- and Rs. 2,19,004/- granted,...

Refund of excess tax paid - The refund claim under 11B was rejected by the Original Authority on the ground that the claim cannot be modified by the appellant to include...

Refund of amount deposited as pre-deposit - It stands clear that appellant is entitled for refund of ₹ 15 Lakhs as were paid in cash by him at the time of the...

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that the Resolution Plan must provide for payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity dues in accordance with Section...

Closure of CIRP - integrity and fairness demanded that the Resolution Professional ought to have facilitated the withdrawal of the CIRP application as was desired by the...

Addition u/s 69A - unexplained income - cash deposits made into bank account during demonetization period - assessee neither furnished stock summary nor bills/vouchers...

The appellate tribunal examined the penalty imposed on the company and individual for contravention of Section 6(3)(a) of FEMA and Regulations 5, 6, and 13 of the...

Expenditure on remuneration of employees (i.e., four servants and two drivers) - confirmed the addition at Rs.1.50 lakhs as against at Rs.4.68 lakhs by the CIT(A) - AT

Quick Updates: