- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
NCLAT Rejects L&K Saatchi & Saatchi’s Plea Citing Pre-Existing Dispute
NCLAT Rejects L&K Saatchi & Saatchi’s Plea Citing Pre-Existing Dispute
The application was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled that a clash over Non-Objection Certificates constitutes a ‘pre-existing dispute’ under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member), and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) observed that email and letter exchanges before issuing a notice under Section 8 demonstrated a genuine dispute before any formal insolvency notice. Thus, it was valid to reject the insolvency application under Section 9.
Law & Kenneth Saatchi & Saatchi Pvt Ltd had appealed against the Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ruling, wherein the appellant’s application was dismissed under Section 9.
The NCLAT noted that emails and letters were exchanged by the corporate debtor’s legal department and the operational creditor’s representative responded. The correspondence was prior to the notice under Section 8.
The appellate tribunal relied on the judicial precedents which held that the adjudicating authority was required to examine the validity of the dispute prior to the issuance of a demand notice.