On April 4^th, 2021, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (“Ordinance”) that introduces the Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (“PPIRP”) for micro, small and medium entities (“MSMEs”). The Ordinance comes into effect from April 4^th, 2021.

Earlier, on March 25^th, 2020, the Government in light of the pandemic stressed economy, had suspended

The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana vs Union Bank of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020] (“Laxmi Pat”) has settled the issue of the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“LimitationAct”) to applications for initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

In a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India (“Court“) in Laxmi Pat Surana vs. Union Bank of India & Anr.¹, the Court has held that the principal borrower need not be a ‘corporate person’ for insolvency process to be initiated against a company which stood as its guarantor, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“).

Brief Facts of the Case

On 26 February 2021 the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowed the invocation of a bank guarantee during a moratorium period imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016. This article summarises the NCLAT’s decision in this case (Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd v JP Engineers Pvt Ltd).

Facts

The conflict between Insolvency and Arbitration is almost of near polar extremes. The difference in focus of the two was well illustrated in Re United States Lines Inc[1] as a:

Recently, the Supreme Court in the decision of Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr¹ (“Arun KumarDecision”) examined the interplay between liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). The issue before the Supreme Court was to decide whether a person ineligible to submit resolution plan under Section 29A of the IBC is barred from proposing a scheme under Section 230 of the Act.

When the Corporate Debtor defaults in making payments to its creditors the process of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be initiated against it by its creditors. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter “the Code”) provides the process for insolvency resolution process (IRP). For this purpose the government also enacted the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and  Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereafter “the Rules”).

On November 20, 2020, the CCI approved the acquisition of the (i) retail and wholesale undertaking (‘RWU’); and (ii) the logistics and warehousing undertaking (‘LWU’) of the Future Group (collectively, ‘Target Businesses’) carried out through various entities of the Future Group, by Reliance Retail Ventures Limited (‘RRVL’) and Reliance Retail and Fashion Lifestyle Limited (‘RRVL WOS’) (collectively, ‘Acquirers’) respectively.

In a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court“) in the case of P. Mohanraj & Ors. Vs. M/S Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd¹, it has been held that the declaration of a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“) covers criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act“). In doing so, the Supreme Court has widened and settled the scope of the applicability of Section 14 of the IBC.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to enable corporate insolvency resolution of financially stressed corporate debtors in a time bound manner, so as to maximise the value of their assets. The decision to rehabilitate or liquidate a corporate debtor lies with the committee of creditors (Committee), comprising the corporate debtor’s financial creditors. The Code allows the Committee sufficient freedom and flexibility to explore, negotiate and, subsequently, choose the most suitable option for the corporate debtor.