India has a vast coastline and easy access to shipping routes, yet India contributes only 1% in global trade.[1] Many major shipowners and operators have chosen key international maritime centres such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai as their base for operations.

The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana vs Union Bank of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020] (“Laxmi Pat”) has settled the issue of the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“LimitationAct”) to applications for initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

The conflict between Insolvency and Arbitration is almost of near polar extremes. The difference in focus of the two was well illustrated in Re United States Lines Inc[1] as a:

INTRODUCTION:

Background

With more than three lakh confirmed cases and 14 thousand deaths across 190 countries, the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has caused (and continues to cause) unprecedented disruptions in the global political, social and economic environment. India has not remained untouched from this. With almost 500 confirmed cases and the country in lock-down mode to prevent further outbreak, social and economic activities have come to a grinding halt.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a “pandemic” on March 11, 2020.

The Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India (Pioneer Judgment)[1], has upheld the constitutionality of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 (Amendment Act)[2].

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been widely considered a landmark legislation that has brought about a paradigm shift in the recovery and resolution process.

However, during the implementation of the IBC over the past two years and eight months, several challenges have emerged, including:

La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala Primera, de 22 de mayo, remarca que determinados comportamientos constitutivos de calificación culpable del concurso pueden provocar una inversión de la carga de la prueba sobre la incidencia del comportamiento de los administradores en la generación o incremento del déficit concursal, pero sigue sin ofrecer la «justificación añadida» de la atribución de la responsabilidad concursal.

1. La reforma del artículo 172 bis de la Ley Concursal