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.

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:

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’)’.

INTRODUCTION:

本文主要讨论公司型基金、合伙型基金自行清算的主要流程，并就基金自行清算出现僵局等情形时，如何申请法院启动基金强制清算程序的主要问题作初步探讨。

基金清算适用的法律

对于公司型基金的清算，其主要适用《公司法》以及《最高人民法院关于适用＜中华人民共和国公司法＞若干问题的规定（二）》（下称“《公司法司法解释二》”）《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》（下称“《强制清算纪要》”）以及部分高院出台的相关审判指导。

对于合伙型基金的清算，除适用《合伙企业法》外，可参照公司法律的有关规定。对此，《民法总则》第一百零八条规定，“非法人组织除适用本章规定外，参照适用本编第三章第一节的有关规定”；第三编第一节对法人清算作出了相关规定，其中第七十一条规定，“法人的清算程序和清算组职权，依照有关法律的规定；没有规定的，参照适用公司法律的有关规定”。例如，北京一中院在（2020）京01清申27号《民事裁定书》中基于上述规定，认定合伙型基金的清算应当参照《公司法》的相关规定进行。

除前述规定外，中国证监会、中基协的相关规定，以及其他行业自治组织的相关规定，亦可作为基金清算的依据。

INTRODUCTION:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) was enacted by the Parliament with the aim to provide and revamp the framework for insolvency resolution in India in a time bound manner and for the promotion of entrepreneurship, credit availability and balancing of different interests of each and every stakeholder of a Company.

The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.

The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.