The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was introduced as a one stop solution for resolving insolvencies, which previously was a long-drawn process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement. In 2022, the Indian courts have been guided by the principal of ‘resolution of insolvency of debtor’ over ‘recovery by creditors’ and have refused insolvency applications where they found such application were for recovery of money rather for insolvency of the debtor.

Introduction

January, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only Between the lines... A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Delhi High Court: Invoking CIRP would not make the dispute non-arbitrable. ⁎ NCLAT: Section 96(1)(b) of the IBC does not stay any future liability or obligation. ⁎ NCLAT: The IBC does not provide for any look-back period on how far back fraudulent transactions can be investigated. ⁎ The changing contours of employment law in India. January, 2023 http://www.vaishlaw.com/ I.

Quite recently, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Tata Steel BSL Limited v. Venus Recruiter Private Limited & Ors., LPA 37/2021, dated 13.01.2023, inter alia, determined, ‘Whether applications for avoidance of preferential transactions can be moved and heard by the Adjudicatory Authority (“AA”) after it has approved the resolution plan of a corporate debtor undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”)?’

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) amended the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 (CIRP Regulations) on 16 September 2022 (the amendment to the CIRP Regulations, Amendment). The Amendment introduced a slew of changes to the CIRP Regulations. One of the key amendments was the introduction of provisions in respect of the sale of one or more assets of the corporate debtor by way of resolution plans.

The Department of Telecommunications is seeking to overhaul the law governing the provision of telecommunication services through the Draft Telecommunication Bill, 2022. The Bill also seeks to govern the provision of telecom services and, or, availability of network during insolvency proceedings in respect of a telecom licensee or assignee. While the DoT’s rationale for this is understandable, the proposed provisions may conflict with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited1 held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.

The corporate insolvency landscape in India has been refocused with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) in the spotlight. Enacted in May 2016, the IBC has been regarded as a game-changing legislation for insolvency resolution.[1] With the shift to a creditor-centric approach from a debtor-in possession model which seemingly had failed, the IBC strives to conclude a corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) with a resolution plan considered viable by its creditors, failing which the corporate entity faces liquidation.

Quite recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v.