In a recent decision of M/s Ksheeraabd Constructions Private Limited v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that proceedings pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) does not constitute a ‘dispute’ under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and cannot come in the way of initiation of the insolvency resolution process, in terms of Section 9 of the Code.
Background
Introduction:
Incorporated with the objective of promoting maximization of value of assets in a time bound manner, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) works towards effective protection to honest creditors against unscrupulous debtors who may misuse insolvency to evade of their liabilities. The conducive and efficacious implementation of the IBC has instilled confidence in the creditors for a systematic and speedy reform. The remedy under the IBC is also available to the unpaid employees of the debtor which is now being recognized judicially as well.
Introduction –
Introduction –
The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCLT’), in the case of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (herein after referred to as AARCL) vs Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd (herein after referred to as HGPL)[1], entertained the first resolution plan filed before it, which was the first to have been submitted since the implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
FACTS
Hamera International Private Limited executed an agreement with, Macquarie Bank Limited, Singapore (hereinafter called ‘appellant’), where the appellant purchased the original supplier's right, title and interest in a supply agreement in favour of Shilpi Cable Technologies (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”).
Background:
Background
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) consolidated the archaic insolvency laws, provided a consolidated legislation and revolutionised the insolvency regime in India. Undoubtedly, the Code has had a significant impact on the way corporate India functions. It has been almost two years since the Code came into effect and in the year 2017 some significant amendments have been made to the Code based on inputs received from various market participants.
Introduction
In proceedings with regards to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) the Bombay High Court has passed a landmark judgement ruling that an application under IBC may be made even in cases where a Winding-Up petition has been admitted by a Company Court. Such an Application under the IBC, would not be permitted, only in such a scenario where final order of Winding-Up has been passed under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Brief Facts of the Case
Introduction
In proceedings with regards to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) the Bombay High Court has passed a landmark judgement ruling that an application under IBC may be made even in cases where a Winding-Up petition has been admitted by a Company Court. Such an Application under the IBC, would not be permitted, only in such a scenario where final order of Winding-Up has been passed under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Brief Facts of the Case