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.

Background

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”).

On April 4^th, 2021, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (“Ordinance”) that introduces the Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (“PPIRP”) for micro, small and medium entities (“MSMEs”). The Ordinance comes into effect from April 4^th, 2021.

Earlier, on March 25^th, 2020, the Government in light of the pandemic stressed economy, had suspended

In a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India (“Court“) in Laxmi Pat Surana vs. Union Bank of India & Anr.¹, the Court has held that the principal borrower need not be a ‘corporate person’ for insolvency process to be initiated against a company which stood as its guarantor, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“).

Brief Facts of the Case

Recently, the Supreme Court in the decision of Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr¹ (“Arun KumarDecision”) examined the interplay between liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). The issue before the Supreme Court was to decide whether a person ineligible to submit resolution plan under Section 29A of the IBC is barred from proposing a scheme under Section 230 of the Act.

In a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court“) in the case of P. Mohanraj & Ors. Vs. M/S Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd¹, it has been held that the declaration of a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“) covers criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act“). In doing so, the Supreme Court has widened and settled the scope of the applicability of Section 14 of the IBC.