The case originates from an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019. State Bank of India filed the application against Satya Prakash Pandey.
State Bank of India filed an application against Satya Prakash Pandey under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 7(2) of the relevant rules for personal guarantors to corporate debtors. The matter was reserved for orders on 2022-06-22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order on 2022-07-08 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 478/2022 (Gaurav Garg -vs- Union of India & Ors.) with W.P.(C) No. 485/2022 and W.P.(C) No. 486/2022, addressing similar issues related to the validity of Sections 95(1), 96(1), 97(5), 99(1), 99(2), 99(4), 99(5), 99(6) and 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court directed that petitioners in those writ petitions should not transfer, alienate, encumber, or dispose of their assets. The NCLT
…Sign in to view the parties.
C.P.(IB)/394(KB)2021 filed under Section 95(1)…
The matter was…
The case originates from an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019. State Bank of India filed the application against Satya Prakash Pandey.
State Bank of India filed an application against Satya Prakash Pandey under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 7(2) of the relevant rules for personal guarantors to corporate debtors. The matter was reserved for orders on 2022-06-22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order on 2022-07-08 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 478/2022 (Gaurav Garg -vs- Union of India & Ors.) with W.P.(C) No. 485/2022 and W.P.(C) No. 486/2022, addressing similar issues related to the validity of Sections 95(1), 96(1), 97(5), 99(1), 99(2), 99(4), 99(5), 99(6) and 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court directed that petitioners in those writ petitions should not transfer, alienate, encumber, or dispose of their assets. The NCLT
…C.P.(IB)/394(KB)2021 filed under Section 95(1)…
The matter was…