In the case of Dilip B Jiwrajka v Union of India & Ors, a 3 (three) judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“SupremeCourt”) has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
Background
In the case of Shiv Charan and Ors.
In the case of Shiv Charan and Ors. v Adjudicating Authority and Anr.1, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (“Bombay HC”) inter alia upheld the powers of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (“NCLT”) to direct the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, after the approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT, in light of Section 32A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 20162 (“IBC”).
By recognising the state government as a secured creditor, the Rainbow Papers judgment exposes the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to incongruous uncertainty
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vs State Bank of India & Ors. has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot assume to itself the power of declaring any provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”) as illegal or ultra vires.
The Power Ministry has issued directions under Section 11 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Direction”), mandating all imported coal-based generating power- plants (“Gencos”) to operate and generate at their full capacity. The Direction also mandates that where the relevant Genco is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”), under IBC, the resolution professional shall take steps to make such plants functional.