In a recent decision, [1], the High Court decided that it was not in the public interest to wind up a business rates mitigation scheme under its Insolvency Act powers, as it found that this scheme did not subvert the intention of insolvency law.

THE ISSUE

In a recent judgment, i.e., on 17 January 2020, the Indian appellate insolvency tribunal, namely, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held in M. Ravindranath Reddy v. G. Kishan, that the lease of immovable property cannot be considered as supply of goods or rendering any services and therefore the due amount cannot fall within the definition of operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

In the winter of 2015, the Indian Legislature sought to tackle the persistent problem of bad debts affecting Indian financial institutions and trade creditors by enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), which was finally notified in May 2016. The key purpose of the enactment was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons / entities. 

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the court does have jurisdiction to grant a licensee (as opposed to a tenant) relief from forfeiture provided that the licensee has possessory or proprietary rights (Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1100).

Forfeiture and Relief from Forfeiture

On 25 April 2018 a new Insolvency Practice Direction came into force with immediate effect (PDIP 2018). Its purpose is to bring the insolvency practice directions into alignment with the procedural requirements under the Insolvency Rules 2016 and the new Business and Property Courts Practice Direction.