The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup
Key Developments
1. Supreme Court clarifies that under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, creditors hold priority over government dues
The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup
Key Developments
1. Additional disclosure requirements and compliances for certain foreign portfolio investors
Recently, in the case of Vishal Chelani & Ors. v. Debashis Nanda (Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023), India’s Supreme Court (SC) ruled on the interface of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
Factual background
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.
Introduction
INTRODUCTION:
In a recent decision, the NCLAT in the case of Beetel Teletech Ltd. v. Arcelia IT Services Private Limited made 2 (two) relevant findings on the maintainability of applications under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”):
On September 18, 2023, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (“CIRP Amendment Regulations”) amending the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
In a nutshell, the CIRP Amendment Regulations:
In the recent case of Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors. v. Mr. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr., the Supreme Court re-affirmed the legal position that persons who are merely beneficiaries of security by a corporate debtor do not qualify as financial creditors in the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) of the corporate debtor. However, the Supreme Court also held that a resolution plan cannot dilute the security interest provided by the corporate debtor in favour of such beneficiaries.
Brief Facts
October, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Supreme Court: Dissenting opinion of an arbitrator cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. * Delhi High Court: When there are two interconnected agreements with conflicting arbitration clauses, the clause contained in the main agreement should be given primacy. * Supreme Court: Admission of claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by CoC would result in making CIRP prolonged and inefficacious.