The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”), has clarified and resolved the ambiguity surrounding the question of jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to entertain insolvency applications against personal guarantors where no corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is pending against the corporate debtor. The issue was addressed through a recent judgment dated January 23, 2025, in Anita Goyal vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.

We are pleased to share our latest instalment of ML Covered, our monthly round-up of key events relevant to those dealing with Management Liability Policies covering D&O, EPL and PTL-type risks.

Insolvency Service publishes its 2024/25 enforcement actions against directors

The Insolvency Service has published its enforcement outcomes for 2024-25, detailing the enforcement actions taken against directors. The information is not for the entire year but covers the period between April 2024 to December 2024.

The Competition Act, 2002 mandates the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) to regulate large sized mergers and acquisitions beyond high value thresholds (in terms of assets or turnovers) prescribed for “combinations” under the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”) to assess whether such transactions could adversely affect competition in the relevant markets, It is an exante process which requires a deep and forwardlooking economic analysis of the competition scenario likely to emerge post such proposed combination.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT), have recently issued judgments in the case of Rishabh Infra v. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd1., which, despite their partially correct conclusions, appear to exhibit significant judicial overreach. These rulings warrant critical scrutiny on several grounds, particularly because their reasoning raises concerns about the implications for litigants, especially operational creditors, within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

1 EXPLORING THE ROLE OF SECTORAL REGULATORS VIS-À-VIS IBC The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” / “Code”) has emerged as the poster child of an ideal model law empowering the restructuring and resolution of financially distressed firms in a fair, timely and balanced manner by maximising recoveries to the debtors claimants.1 The corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Code essentially functions in a manner as per which a resolution plan is proposed for all stakeholders of the debtor, ideally within an outer timeline of 330 days.2 The creditors and stakeholders ar

The recent judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in  NCC Ltd. v. Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd.[i] sheds light on the treatment of operational creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). This ruling emphasizes the evolving judicial perspective regarding the categorization and sub-classification of operational creditors, highlighting the need for flexibility based on objective considerations.

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) is an adjudicating authority in India responsible for deciding matters related to amalgamations, mergers, insolvency and restructuring processes. In deciding such matters, one critical function of the NCLT is to balance the commercial objectives of companies with the interests of public stakeholders and regulators, ensuring that corporate restructurings do not compromise public interest.

BACKGROUND

Introduction

On November 07, 2024, the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) in its judgment in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr.,^[1] directed the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet”), bringing an end to the five-year long saga of efforts to revive the beleaguered airline.