Background

The regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), is largely creditor centric. In fact, extraordinary as it may sound, corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under IBC is nothing short of a puppet show, with the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) as the puppet master. The CoC, comprising of financial creditors of the corporate debtor, is paramount in terms of making the most significant decisions of the process and plays a vital role in resolving the debt.

On August 11, 2022, a two-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. has observed that the time limit of 45 (forty-five) days prescribed under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Act”) is provided for quick enforcement of the security.

Brief Facts & Procedural History

On 27 July 2022, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Zoom Communications Private Limited v Par Excellence Real Estate Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 619 of 2022 upheld the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) dated 17 May 2022 dismissing an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the ground that the debt appeared suspicious and collusive in nature.

Background

In a recent judgment in the case of ABG Shipyard, the Supreme Court has decided an extremely relevant question of law concerning the liquidation process under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

2016年インド破産倒産法の下、事業債権者と金融債権者の取り扱いに差が生じていることについては、発足当初から重要な懸念点として取り上げられてきました。金融債権者は、企業債務者と純粋に金銭的な取り決めを行っている者であるのに対して、事業債権者は、企業債務者が供給した商品又は提供したサービスの対価として金銭的債権を有する者とされます。インドの破産倒産法関連で近年争われた事例に、企業債務者の破産手続を開始するための最低基準額である1,000万ルピーの債務不履行金額を満たすか否かの判断において、「利息」を「主たる事業債務」に含めることができるか？というものがあります。

会社法審判所(NCLT)では様々な異なる見解が示されていましたが、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)は、Mr. Prashant Agarwal v. Vikash Parasrampuria (Prashant Agarwal Judgment)において、最低基準額1,000 万ルピーの計算の際、利息分を含めることできるかという問題について、明確にしました。

Brief Facts – 概要

Premise

Since the advent of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the insolvency law regime in India has been consolidated and uniformized. Courts have repeatedly held that the IBC is a code in itself and that one need not look elsewhere in deciding matters under it.

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: NCLT has discretion to not admit Financial Creditor’s CIRP Application even if Corporate Debtor is in default. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated July 12, 2022 in the matter of Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited [Civil Appeal No.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted at a time when there was no singular law which dealt with insolvency and bankruptcy in India. A perusal of the statement of objects and preamble of the Code reveal that it was enacted to consolidate the law of insolvency resolution of companies, partnerships etc in a time bound manner, for maximisation of assets and for balancing of interests of all stakeholders.

In the matter of Mr. Praful Nanji Satra v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Ors., the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) observed that insufficiency in payment of stamp duty will not affect admission of corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) for a valid debt.

Brief Facts

In a recent order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench (NCLAT), dismissing two appeals in Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta v. State Bank of India, Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 807 of 2021 and Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta v. State Bank of India & Anr., Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 740 of 2022 (dated 29 July 2022), it was held that merely by acquiring foreign citizenship after the execution of a deed of guarantee, a personal guarantor cannot escape his/her liability under the guarantee.