Introduction

Introduction

The Supreme Court (SC) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr v. Sach Marketing Private Limited & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 649 upheld the judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (NCLAT), dated 07 October 2021 (Impugned Order) by which Sach Marketing Private Limited (Sach) was held to be a ‘financial creditor’ of Mount Shivalik Industries Limited, the corporate debtor, (CD) in corporate insolvency resolution proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

Recently, by a judgment dated 30 May 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Courtin the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus A. Balakrishnan & Anr (Judgment dated 30 May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021) held that a recovery certificate issued the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1992 (RDB Act) would qualify as a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and give rise to a fresh cause of action under section 7 of the IBC.

Facts and Background

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity

A contentious issue in the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) has been the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Section 18), which stipulates that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time of the acknowledgement of liability in writing before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation.