Supreme Court: Interest free term loans advanced to a corporate person are not excluded from the purview of a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. II. Bombay High Court: A secured debt shall take priority over the ‘Government’ dues/tax dues under the SARFAESI Act. III. NCLAT: Rejects application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on grounds of collusion between the corporate debtor and the financial creditor. IV.

I. Supreme Court: Entries made in balance sheet amount to acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated April 15, 2021 (“Judgement”), in the matter of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal & Another [Civil Appeal No.323/2021], held that entries in balance sheets amount to acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“1963 Act”).

India is the seventh largest country in the world spread over a total area of 32,87,263 sq kms, including the territorial seas. Located in South Asia in the tropical belt just north of the equator, it is separated from mainland Asia by the Himalayas, a mountain range that umbrellas the entire northern region stretching to a distance of 2,400 kms to the east. India is home to some of the world‟s highest peaks shielding the country‟s 281 States and 82 Union Territories. Several important rivers originate from this mountain range.

The outbreak of Novel COVID-19 and the nationwide imposed lockdown in India has caused all walks of life to a standstill. Courts and Tribunals came to the rescue of litigants who were facing practical difficulties in filing the petition and passed orders on both judicial side protecting the right to institute proceedings belatedly as well administrative side by bringing the court-room to computer desks.

An issue plaguing successful resolution applicants under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is with respect to government claims pertaining to the period prior to approval of the Resolution Plan. Government claims, such as those raised by the Income Tax Department, Central and State GST Department, extinguished by resolution plans continue to be pursued by such departments by way of issuance of demand notices under respective statutes. 

I. Delhi HC: If the original contract in entirety is put to an end, the arbitration clause, which is a part of it, also perishes along with it The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“DHC”) has in its judgement dated October 22, 2020 (“Judgement”) in the matter of Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja and Others [ARB. Pet. 4/2020], held that if the contract is superseded by another, the arbitration clause, being a component/part of the earlier contract, falls with it.

NCLAT: Decree holder cannot be classified as a financial creditor for the purpose of initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 II. Supreme Court: Limitation period for an application under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of CIRP is three years from the date of default III. NCLAT: IBC has no bar for the 'Promoter' to file 'resolution application', even if otherwise not eligible in terms of Section 29A IV. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: An analysis

Force Majeure in general parlance means any event or circumstance (or combination thereof) that wholly or partly prevents or causes unavoidable delay in the performance of contractual obligations or makes the perform

Below are the key highlights of the newsletter:

• Supreme Court: No provision under the IBC requiring the resolution plan to match liquidation value; and an approved resolution plan cannot be withdrawn under Section 12A of the IBC
• NCLAT: No default by real estate developer if possession delayed due to reasons beyond control
• Supreme Court: Provident Fund benefits payable to contractual employees from date of filing writ petition and not retrospectively
• NCLT: Automatic waiver of legal proceedings is not permitted in a resolution plan

INTRODUCTION  

With the much awaited-judgment in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy regime; the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter “SC” or “apex court”) cleared off the long-standing confusions encompassing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter the “Code” or “IBC”) with its landmark in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Orsi on November 15, 2019.