Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”), has clarified and resolved the ambiguity surrounding the question of jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to entertain insolvency applications against personal guarantors where no corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is pending against the corporate debtor. The issue was addressed through a recent judgment dated January 23, 2025, in Anita Goyal vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.

Recently, in State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal 10424 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the issue of certified copy of Order that is filed along with the appeal. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed several provisions of NCLT Rules and NCLAT Rules and held as follows:

i) Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as “certified copies” for the purpose of Rule 50 of NCLT Rules.

Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by a Russian trustee in bankruptcy has succeeded in striking out some parts of a defence to a claim that a share transfer was a sham or a transaction defrauding creditors. Other parts of the defence were not, however struck out.

Kireeva (as trustee and bankruptcy manager of Bedzhamov) v Zolotova and Basel Properties Limited [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by the former administrators of a company for an increase in their remuneration has been dismissed, despite the Court concluding that they had standing to bring the application itself.

Frost and another v The Good Box Co Labs Limited and others [2024] EWHC 422 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: In November 2023, Mr Justice Miles sanctioned restructuring plans under section 901F of the Companies Act 2006 in respect of two companies within the Atento group. The plans had significant creditor support, did not involve any cross-claim cram down and achieved a demonstrably better outcome for creditors than the alternative, a group-wide liquidation.

Re Atento UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 3076 (Ch))

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a second appeal, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decisions of two lower Courts in concluding that due to the conduct of a bankrupt and his insolvency, his bankruptcy should not (on an exercise of discretion) be annulled, despite concluding that the bankruptcy order should not have been made.

Khan v Singh-Sall and another [2023] EWHC 1119 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), office-holders are given wide powers but they are subject to the control of the court. In order to allow insolvency practitioners to carry out their duties efficiently and without having constantly to look over their shoulders, this control has always been exercised with a light touch. In recent years there have been several important cases examining these issues.[1]