Enforced with the objective of time-bound insolvency resolution and maximization of assets, the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”), in order to facilitate the process of insolvency resolution, has provision for appointment of an insolvency resolution professional (hereinafter referred to as “IRP”).

It is known that I & B Code came into effect from 01.12.2016.  Subsequently, it perspired during various proceedings in NCLT that it has no specific provision for limitation period and/or categorical applicability of Limitation Act on initiation of insolvency process under the Act.

However, the limitation period is prescribed under the Limitation Act for every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made under the law.

As per Section 5(14) of the IB Code "Insolvency Resolution Process Period" is 180 days.

“Period of one hundred and eighty days beginning from the insolvency commencement date and ending on one hundred and eightieth day;”

COMPLETION OF INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS - It must be noted that Section 12 of the IB Code prescribes the time limit for completion of Insolvency Resolution process.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has held that ‘Moratorium’ under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will not only be applicable to the property of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ but also on its ‘Personal Guarantor’.

Brief Facts:

Background:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court on February 2, 2018, upheld the validity of Section 7, 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as ‘IBC 2016’ or ‘the Code’) in the case of Akshay Jhunjhunwala & anr. v. Union of India[1].

Introduction

A bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul in the case of M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Vs Hero Fincorp Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 15147 of 2017 dealt with the issue that whether an NBFC is entitled to initiate proceedings under SARFAESI Act and arbitration proceedings, simultaneously, with respect to a loan account.

Background

In our previous publication on the subject, we had discussed the changes introduced by the Ordinance dated 23 November 2017 (the Ordinance), amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) (see our Ergo Newsflash dated 24 November 2017).

On 15 December 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered a landmark judgment in Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cables, Civil Appeal 15135/2017 on whether Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code) is mandatory and whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Macquarie Bank against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) in Shilpi Cable Technologies v.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) on 7 November 2017 passed a judgment in the case of M/s Speculum Plast Private Limited v. PTC Techno Private Limited, putting to rest the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The present judgment comes in the wake of the decision of the NCLAT in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd.