The Resolution Professional sought a 90-day extension of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on a resolution passed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on February 22, 2019. The Corporate Debtor purportedly lacks property, but receivables exist, for which an application has been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code), 2016.
The Resolution Professional requested a 90-day extension of the CIRP, supported by a CoC resolution dated February 22, 2019. The Corporate Debtor allegedly has no property, but receivables exist, leading to an application under Section 60(5) of the I&B Code, 2016. The Resolution Professional argued that if the application favors the Corporate Debtor, the receivables could satisfy the Operational Creditor's claim. The court found this contingent with no immediate recovery prospects. The CIRP period was expiring.
Sign in to view the parties.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) passed a…
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) heard…
The Resolution Professional sought a 90-day extension of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on a resolution passed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on February 22, 2019. The Corporate Debtor purportedly lacks property, but receivables exist, for which an application has been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code), 2016.
The Resolution Professional requested a 90-day extension of the CIRP, supported by a CoC resolution dated February 22, 2019. The Corporate Debtor allegedly has no property, but receivables exist, leading to an application under Section 60(5) of the I&B Code, 2016. The Resolution Professional argued that if the application favors the Corporate Debtor, the receivables could satisfy the Operational Creditor's claim. The court found this contingent with no immediate recovery prospects. The CIRP period was expiring.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) passed a…
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) heard…