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.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT) in the case of Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs Ashok Tripathi and Ors, has reiterated that a decree-holder though covered under the definition of creditor under Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not fall within the class of financial creditors and therefore, a decree holder cannot initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor with an object to execute a decree.
In continuation of Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) efforts to ease financial stress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the RBI issued the circular on the Resolution Framework for Covid-19 Related Stress dated 6 August 2020 (August 6 Circular). The August 6 Circular creates a limited time window for certain categories of borrowers affected by Covid-19 pandemic related business disruption to be allowed resolution plans in the nature of restructuring while permitting the borrower accounts to retain their status as ‘standard’.
Background:
On 24 July 2020, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), in its decision in GRIDCO Limited v Surya Kanta Sathapathy and Others [C.A. (AT) (Insolvency) 1271 of 2019] (GRIDCO judgement), held that the termination of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) during the subsistence of a moratorium would be in violation of Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). FACTUAL BACKGROUND |
A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.
Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.
Section 139ZQ notices
In a significant judgment dated 9 June 2020 titled ‘Indus Biotech Private Limited v.
Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.
Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.
Introduction
Background
Ever since the Hon’ble Finance Minister of India announced the suspension of initiation of corporate insolvency under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been several market speculations about the nature and extent of the proposed suspension and its implications. With the promulgation of the amendment ordinance to IBC, most of these speculations have been put to rest, however owing to the language of the Ordinance, a new set of issues may have arisen.