The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).
Introduction
The modification or withdrawal of Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code / IBC”) had always been a contentious subject, with the National Company Law Tribunal (“Adjudicating Authority / NCLT”) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) taking conflicting views in the past.
INTRODUCTION:
In a recent judgement of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. and Ors. (being Civil Appeal No.7976 of 2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite the latter containing two specific provisions being Section 173 and 174 which have overriding effect over all other laws.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
The U.K. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023
In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“theCode”).
The U.K. government has published its much-anticipated proposals for regulating the cryptoasset industry. These proposals, currently in the form of a consultation, will see many (but not all) cryptoasset-related activities being brought within the regulatory perimeter for financial services in the U.K.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.
Judge: Preston
Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever