The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (“NCLAT”) has in M/s. KK Ropeways Limited v. M/s Billion Smiles Hospitality Private Limited¹inter alia held that an arbitral award cannot be enforced under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) when a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) has been preferred against such an award.

Brief Facts

A single bench of the High Court of Bombay (“Bombay HC”) in Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. M/s Poonamchand & Sons has held that appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ArbitrationAct”) cannot be prevented on account of initiation of proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the case of M. K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr., has held that, while commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) must be respected, certain factors having a material bearing on the process of approval of the resolution plan should also be borne in mind.

The appeal challenged an order (“Impugned Order“) passed by the Delhi High Court in a writ petition (“Writ“) filed by Singer. Vide the Impugned Order, the Division Bench of the High Court had referred the Writ to a larger bench as it doubted the correctness of the judgment in Continental Carbon India Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2012 (131) DRJ 291 (DB) (“Modi Rubber”).

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in its recent judgment Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki PPL Ltd.

In the case of State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamachari Union & Ors., the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has upheld the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in the matter of State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamachari Union & Anr. (“Moser Baer Case”).

The Supreme Court of India (‘Supreme Court’) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. has held that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) for recovery of dues payable to a secured creditor will prevail over the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSMED Act’).

Brief Facts

In the case of IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund v. McLeod Russel India Limited, the Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) held that in order to determine whether a shortfall undertaking will qualify as an instrument of guarantee as defined under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”), one has to look into the intention of the parties as reflected in the terms of such undertaking.

In the recent decision of IDBI Bank v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that an irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period in view of the amended provision under Section 14 (3) (b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) in the case of Tata Steel BSL Limited v. Venus Recruiters Private Limited & Ors., etc. has put to rest the issue on avoidance applications proceedings surviving the conclusion of corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).