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.

Debt exchanges have long been utilized by distressed companies to address liquidity concerns and to take advantage of beneficial market conditions. A company saddled with burdensome debt obligations, for example, may seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with the same outstanding principal but with borrower-favorable terms, like delayed payment or extended maturation dates (a "Face Value Exchange"). Or the company might seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with a lower face amount, motivated by discounted trading values for the existing notes (a "Fair Value Exchange").

One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.