Recently, the High Court of Delhi, reinforced the application of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“). Section 32A of the IBC states that the liability of a corporate debtor (“CD“) for an offence committed prior to commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) shall cease and the CD shall not be prosecuted for such an offence from the date the resolution plan (“Plan“) has been approved by the adjudicating authority (“AA”).

Recently, in the case of Vivek Khanna vs. OYO Apartments Investments LLP¹, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act“), by way of which, Mr. Vivek Khanna (the “Petitioner“) assailed the award dated March 31, 2023 (the “ImpugnedAward“) passed by the arbitral tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator.

Recently, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT“), in the case of Dharmindra Constructions Private Limited and Anr. vs.

Insolvency Proceedings are commenced upon bankruptcy of a debtor. In simple terms, bankruptcy is inability of a corporate debtor to pay back its creditors. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) governs insolvency proceedings in India. A corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is a recovery mechanism for the creditors of the corporate debtor and the CIRP can be initiated under Section 7 & Section 9 of the IBC.

In 2016, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“IBC”) was enacted with the objective to bring the insolvency law in India under a single unified umbrella and to ensure speedy resolution of an entity (“Corporate Debtor”) which has defaulted in payment to its creditors (including the statutory authorities). Under the IBC, the Corporate Debtor is required to undergo a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

On May 21, 2021, the Apex Court of India, in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors.¹, upheld the validity of the Centre’s notification dated November 15, 2019, allowing banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) (“Notification”).

The Supreme Court, recently, in the case of Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Spade Financial Services Limited ¹, held that the intent of Sec. 21 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) will be defeated if related parties are just determined “in presaenti” i.e., on the present basis. The issue pertained to the interpretation of Section 21 of the IBC, which provides for constitution of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”).