In a recent decision in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Another, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has held that the rents receivable by a borrower which was assigned to a lender of a lease rental discounting facility would not be treated as an asset of the borrower, and thus fall outside the purview of the asset and security freeze order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”).

Brief Facts

In a recent decision, the NCLAT in the case of Beetel Teletech Ltd. v. Arcelia IT Services Private Limited made 2 (two) relevant findings on the maintainability of applications under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”):

On September 18, 2023, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (“CIRP Amendment Regulations”) amending the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

In a nutshell, the CIRP Amendment Regulations:

In a significant decision, the NCLAT in the case of Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. vs K. K. Agro Foods & Storage has recently held that a written financial contract is not the only basis for proving the financial debt. Financial debt can be proved from other relevant documents such as the balance sheet entries of the financial creditor, the corporate debtor’s balance sheet and the Form 26AS showing TDS deductions on the interest.

Brief Facts

In a recent decision the NCLAT, in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. vs. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. held that even if the creditor realizes certain amounts after the original date of default / invocation, the date of a subsequent demand notice (for the adjusted amount) cannot be treated as the “date of default” for purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

INTRODUCTION

One of the biggest changes brought in by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was the demarcation between treatment of interest vis-à-vis financial debt and operational debt. Over time, Courts have interpreted the Code with the aim to strengthen the foundation and resolve uncertainties. One such exercise, which has greatly impacted the insolvency regime, is the inclusion of interest in operational debt.

PHASE 1 – EXCLUSION OF INTEREST

In the case of Iskon Infra Engineering Private Limited v.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr Vs SACH Marketing Pvt. Ltd & Anr, has established the following principles on classification of a debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”):

In the recent decision of the Anjani Kumar Prashar (Suspended Director of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Limited) v. Manab Dutta1, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that the auction purchaser would also be a financial creditor vis‐à‐vis the creditors of the entity whose assets were purchased by the auction purchaser.

In the recent decision of Ashok Dattatray Atre & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.1 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has reiterated that the extension of payment timelines under a resolution plan does not constitute a modification thereof, and the National Company Law Tribunal has the power to grant such extension even without the express concurrence of the committee of creditors (“CoC”).

Brief Facts