The legal framework w.r.t. law of insolvency in India has seen considerable progress since the introduction of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Legislature, taking cue from various judgments passed by the courts and the grey areas identified during the implementation of the provisions of IBC, introduced various amendments from time to time. However, notwithstanding such amendments, various legal questions involving interpretation and implementation of provisions of IBC keep arising posing challenges before the Courts to resolve the same.
When an employer is insolvent and administrators appointed, job losses are often an inevitable consequence. In this blog we look at the legal obligations arising where redundancies meet the threshold for collective consultation, and the implications for administrators arising out of the recent Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another.
When does the legal obligation to collectively consult apply?
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (New Delhi Bench) (“NCLAT”) in two recent judgments passed in Raiyan Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Unrivalled Projects Pvt. Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1071 of 2023] and Aryan Mining & Trading Corpn Pvt. Ltd. vs Kail limited and Anr. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
INTRODUCTION:
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) being a relatively new legislation, has witnessed inconsistent interpretation of its various provisions, especially in respect of certain legal issues, which are grey areas i.e. the issues which are not specifically dealt with under the existing provisions of IBC. One of such interesting legal issue is effect of breach of settlement agreements, entered into between two parties, where one party promises to pay a certain amount to the other party.
Introduction:
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India, while keeping up the efforts of plugging various loopholes in Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), decided an interesting legal issue relating to the scope of Section 5(20) of the Code, which provides the definition of “operational creditor”.
The Apex Court, in the case of Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited, was seized of the following legal questions:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
INTRODUCTION:
The Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund [AIR 2021 SC 1638] has settled an important question of law: ‘whetheran application filed under Section 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’) can be said to be maintainable in a proceeding initiated under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’)’.