Hajime Ueno, Masaru Shibahara and Kotaro Fuji, Nishimura & Asahi
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
Heidi Chui, Stevenson, Wong & Co
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
In summary
Swee Siang Boey and Suchitra Kumar, RPC Premier Law
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
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:
In the blog post titled ‘Vidarbha Aftermath’, the decision of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”) was discussed and analysed.
Matthew Czyzyk, Natalie Blanc and Toby Morris, Ropes & Gray
This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
In a significant order passed on June 28, 2023, in the case of Ronak Industries vs.
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”).
Artemis Amalia Metaxa, Chrysostomides Advocates & Legal Consultants
This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
In summary