A key concern in respect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) since its inception has been the differential treatment of operational creditors and financial creditors. For context, financial creditors have a purely financial arrangement with the corporate debtor, while operational creditors are those who are owed money by the corporate debtor for the provision of goods supplied or services rendered.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons.

Introduction

2016年破産倒産法は、企業債務者の時間的制約のある再建と倒産処理を主たる目的として制定されました。同法に基づき、企業債務者の金融債権者又は事業債権者は、債務不履行が発生した場合、会社法審判所(以下「NCLT」)に対して、企業債務者の倒産処理手続の開始を申請することができます。

会社法上訴審判所(以下「NCLAT」)の各種判決に照らすと、Decree-Holder(後ほど説明します)が企業の債務者に対して破産手続きを開始する権利は、Decree-Holderが金融債権者であるか否かについての見解が分かれており、不確実なものとなっていました。金融債権者が破産手続を開始するプロセスは、事業債権者によるプロセスと比較して、非常に異なっています。

「decree」と「decree holder」の概念について説明すると、「decree」とは、訴訟関係者の権利を説明する裁判官による裁決の公式宣言であり、decreeが下された者が「decree holder」と呼ばれます。

Introduction

2016年破産倒産法については、導入以来、継続して改正が行われてきています。2018年倒産破産法(第2次修正)法(以下「2018年改正法」)により、不動産プロジェクトの割当者(以下「住宅購入者」)は、「金融債権者」の範囲に含まれ、不動産開発業者に対する破産手続を開始することができるようになりました。その後、当該2018年改正法については、Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of Indiaにて最高裁で争われ、最終的に憲法上の有効性が認められました。

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted with a primary objective of timebound reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate debtors. Under the Code, financial or operational creditors of a corporate debtor can approach the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to initiate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor upon occurrence of a default by the corporate debtor.

Introduction

Recent conflicting judgments of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the High Courts had given rise to ambiguity regarding the jurisdiction of NCLT vis-à-vis personal guarantors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

On 23 November 2021, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of TATA Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Vishal Ghisulal Jain, Resolution Professional, SK Wheels Pvt. Ltd. (TCS Case), clarified that the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be invoked by the corporate debtor if the termination of a contract by a third party takes place on grounds unrelated to the insolvency of the corporate debtor.

Brief facts

The problem of Non-performing Assets (NPAs) in the Indian banking system is one of its foremost predicaments.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has played a significant role in rescuing financially distressed companies as compared to the former insolvency law regimes which were provided in various statues having different objectives and processes. The initial success of the Code is attributable to various factors including the manner in which the Indian judiciary interpreted the law as well as the timely amendments of the Code by the Legislature.