Introduction

On 17 July 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgement in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 842 (Raman Ispat). The specific issue of whether Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Appellant) could enforce a security interest created over the assets of Raman Ispat Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) outside of the liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was settled in the negative. More importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confined the applicability of State Tax Officer v.

In a recent order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in Somesh Choudhary v Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Anr. under Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No.

In a recent order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench (NCLAT), dismissing two appeals in Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta v. State Bank of India, Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 807 of 2021 and Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta v. State Bank of India & Anr., Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 740 of 2022 (dated 29 July 2022), it was held that merely by acquiring foreign citizenship after the execution of a deed of guarantee, a personal guarantor cannot escape his/her liability under the guarantee.

The Supreme Court of India in Indian Overseas Bank v M/s RCM Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. held that a sale under section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”), would be regarded as complete only upon receipt of full consideration towards the sale properties.

Facts and Background

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vide its order dated 3 January 2022 in Jayanthi Ravi v Chemizol Additives Pvt Ltd ruled that the advance extended by a director to the company which is recorded as a loan in the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors would be classified as financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

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.

In Callidus Capital Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen,[1] the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a troubling 2017 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bankruptcy of a debtor extinguishes the deemed trust for unremitted GST and HST created in favour of the Crown (“CRA”) by section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”).

众所周知，采矿业面临着艰难的局面。在最近几年的市场繁荣时期，矿业公司承担了空前庞大的债务。目前，随着商品价格的下降和再融资来源的枯竭，这些巨额的债务令许多公司步履维艰，严重威胁着它们的生存。

加拿大

若无法与债权人商定业务解决方案，公司应该考虑向债权人寻求破产法项下的保护。在加拿大拥有资产或在加拿大经营业务且债务金额在五百万以上的公司可获得联邦《公司债权人安排法》（简称，“CCAA”）项下的保护。

CCAA允许公司在重组公司事务时暂缓债权人追诉，同时根据某些条件维持对公司经营的控制。公司，特别是未达到五百万债务门槛的公司，还可以考虑联邦《破产法》项下的和解机制。在本文中，我们将讨论CCAA项下的程序。

CCAA项下程序的第一步是获得法院命令，该命令将暂缓债权人在三十日的初始期限内行使其权利，从而允许公司制定重组方案。在获得首个暂缓命令前，公司无需通知债权人，尽管在许多情况下，建议公司通知其债权人。

若公司能够证明其很有可能将提交重组方案，并且延期不会有损于债权人的整体利益，暂缓命令的期限还可以延长。下达暂缓命令时，法院还将任命独立第三方在命令生效期间，监控公司业务及财务事宜。监控人须向法院报告公司的业务行为，但并不管理或指导公司业务。