The Supreme Court has held that the ‘doctrine of election’, stemming out of the law of evidence that bars prosecution of the same right in two different fora based on the same cause of action, cannot be applied to prevent a financial creditor from approaching the adjudicating authority for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a corporate debtor.

In a case where the Liquidator after issuing the certificate that the appellant had won the auction of the subject property, cancelled the e-auction without giving any justification or reason for such cancellation, the Supreme Court has stated that it is incomprehensible that an administrative authority can take a decision without disclosing the reasons for taking such a decision.

The Honourable Supreme Court, in the matter of Abhishek Singh v.Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. and Ors. recently rendered a significant ruling, establishing that a plea for the withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) can be allowed by the adjudicating authority even prior to the establishment of the committee of creditors (‘CoC’).

Revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) proceedings refers to the restoration of the already withdrawn CIRP by a creditor which generally happens upon the breach of the settlement agreement (‘Settlement Agreement’) pursuant to which the application for CIRP also gets withdrawn. In such circumstances, rather than filing for a fresh application for initiation of CIRP, the creditor may seek reviving of the earlier application.

A five-Member Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) has held that NCLAT is not vested with any power to review its own judgment, however, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction it can entertain an application for recall of judgment on certain grounds. The Tribunal was of the view that it has an inherent jurisdiction to recall a judgement which was made with procedural lapses, per se, when a party affected by the judgment has not been impleaded. The Tribunal in Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) v. Dinkar T.

While the inclusion of interest amounts in ‘financial debt’, for the purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), is clearly provided for in the IBC, the interest component in the case of operational debt has always been a point of contention.

In an interesting case involving intersection of insolvency laws with a tax settlement scheme, the Supreme Court of India has on 5 January 2023 allowed assessee’s appeal against the High Court decision dismissing assessee’s writ petition which had sought direction to the Revenue department for consideration of the case of the assessee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (‘Scheme’).

The Supreme Court has held that if the Resolution Plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or legal authority, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the same.

The Apex Court in State Tax Officer v.Rainbow Papers Limited [Judgement dated 6 September 2022] was of the view that the Committee of Creditors, which might include financial institutions and other financial creditors, cannot secure their own dues at the cost of statutory dues owed to any Government or Governmental Authority or for that matter, any other dues.

A 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 26 August 2022 has held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will prevail over the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Supreme Court has held that Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers discretionary power on the NCLT with respect to admission of application under said provision.

The Court was however of the view that such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously and that NCLT must consider the grounds made out by the corporate debtor against admission, on its own merits.