Since the implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“Code”), the Real Estate Sector has been in turmoil, with many transactions entered into by the Builder(s) undermining and jeopardising the legitimate interests of innocuous creditors. The Code encompasses a collection of transactions that the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) and the liquidator appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) for companies in insolvency or liquidation should avoid, as stated below.
Introduction
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), a trade creditor may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process if there is an unpaid operational debt above INR 10 million. An ‘operational debt’ under the Code means a claim in relation to goods and services. The insolvency courts have provided divergent views on the issue of whether rental dues or license fees for use of premises would qualify as an ‘operational debt’ under the Code.
Introduction
In a move to accord relief to Licensors with outstanding license fee payments, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) vide order dated 7th July 2022 (“Order”) held that a debt arising from unpaid license fees is qualified as an ‘operational debt’ under Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
INTRODUCTION:
このニュースレターは、2022年6月のインドの破産法の進展に関する重要な最新情報をカバーしています。
I. Introduction
Proceedings against personal guarantors find their origin in Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the co-extensive liability of a surety. It has long been considered that a surety’s liability to pay the debt is not removed by reason of the creditor’s omission to sue the principal debtor. Such a creditor is not bound to exhaust his remedy against the principal debtor before suing the surety, and a suit may be maintained against the surety even though the principal debtor has not been sued.
Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: NCLT/NCLAT should not sit in appeal over commercial wisdom of the CoC to allow withdrawal of CIRP. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated June 3, 2022, in the matter of Vallal RCK v. M/s. Siva Industries and Holdings Limited and Others [Civil Appeal Nos.
This newsletter covers key updates about the developments in Indian insolvency laws during the month of June 2022
The Supreme Court has held that Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers discretionary power on the NCLT with respect to admission of application under said provision.
The Court was however of the view that such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously and that NCLT must consider the grounds made out by the corporate debtor against admission, on its own merits.