Supreme Court has held that:

The Supreme Court in its recent decision in K Kishan v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, Civil Appeal No 21825 of 2017, has put to rest the question of whether an arbitral award that has been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by the award debtor can form the basis for an action under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

The enforcement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) has reinforced the resolution of insolvency in a time bound manner and for maximization of the value assets. In furtherance of a more organized resolution process, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board (hereinafter referred to as “IBBI”) brought forth the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”).

Committee of Creditors

The company being an independent legal entity is recognized for distinguished identity. The specialized corporate structure is monitored under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

National Company Law Tribunal

Background:

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India has invited suggestions on a draft chapter on Cross Border Insolvency (Proposed Amendment) proposed to be included within the framework of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by a public notice dated 20-6-2018 (Notice).

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“Board”) has, by way of a notification dated July 3, 20181(“Notification”), amended the CIRP Regulations. Amongst the many amendments, the more notable ones relate to prescribing what may seem to be model timelines that would now apply to any corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”).