The Supreme Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd & Anr. v. Vijaykumar V. Iyer & Ors. (Civil Appeals nos. 3088-89 of 2020) clarified the law on permissibility of set-off of claims under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("The Code") at the stage of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") when the Resolution Professional ("RP") proceeds under Section 25 (2)(a) of the Code.

In the matter of BRS Refineries vs. . Mr. Supriyo Kumar Chaudhari, the NCLAT New Delhi upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench, rejecting an appeal filed by BRS Refineries. The earlier appeal had challenged the action of the liquidator for JVL Agro Industries Ltd., to forfeit the earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs. 96 lakhs pursuant to the e-auction of the assets of JVL Agro Industries Ltd.

A guarantor’s rights of subrogation are provided for in Sections 140 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“ICA”). These rights allow a guarantor to step into the shoes of the creditor, upon fulfilling the debtor’s payment obligations to the creditor. This means that the guarantor assumes all the rights including the security that the creditor enjoyed against the principal debtor.

Under the framework of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), an asset reconstruction company (ARC) has wide powers to revive a company facing financial difficulties. It can use securitisation, reconstruction and recovery for quick resolution of distressed debt. As an alternative, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), allows ARCs with access to a formal resolution process, which has the advantage of the borrower emerging debt-free with a clean slate.

This compendium presents a curated collection of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Securities Appellate Tribunal ("SAT") from 2019 to 2024. Established to hear and dispose of appeals against orders passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), and the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA), SAT plays a pivotal role in shaping the regulatory landscape of the financial and securities markets in India.

On June 19, 2024, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) released a discussion paper proposing to bring in significant amendments to the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Process) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations), aiming to streamline the process, enhance its effectiveness and reduce delays.[1] It complements the plan, unveiled earlier this month, to reduce the compliance burden on insolvency professionals.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“H SC”) in the matter of Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr v. Sach Marketing Private Limited & Anr[i] has passed common judgement wherein it has upheld the order of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which categorized lenders as financial creditors for the purpose of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). 

Factual Aspect:

The intention of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) is to rehabilitate the companies and individuals by way of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRP’).

The IBBI Working Group on Group Insolvency (under the chairmanship of UK Sinha) and the MCA Cross Border Insolvency Rules/Regulations Committee having submitted their reports (collectively “Reports”) had recommended the introduction of a framework governing the resolution of enterprise groups under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) in September 2019 and December 2021 respectively.

This article analyses the extent to which dissenting financial creditors are protected under the Indian insolvency regime.