INTRODUCTION

今回のニュースレターでは、2021 年 5 月の破産倒産法関連の主なアップデートについて取り扱ってい ます。インド最高裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）、会社法審判所（NCLT）の各裁判 所において下された重要な判決について、まとめました。

1) NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LIQUIDATOR TAKEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CORPORATE DEBTOR.

Matter: Basavaraj Koujalagi & Ors. v. Sumit Binani, Liquidator of Gujarat NRE Coke Limited

Order dated: 03 May 2021.

Summary:

主に、債権者が直面している不良債権の回収問題を解決するため、2016年破産倒産法は制定されました。 本FAQでは、破産倒産法の概要、関連諸手続き等について扱っています。

1. 破産倒産法が適用されるのはどのような場合ですか？

会社、有限責任事業組合、組合、個人の倒産、清算、任意整理、破産において適用されます。

2. 破産倒産法の目的は？

財務的困難に陥っている会社の再編成および倒産処理の実施です。

3. 破産倒産法において規定されている制度的枠組みは？

On 21 May 2021, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors, upheld the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) which permitted banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company. Under the Code, the Government of India (“Government”) has been conferred powers to enforce certain provisions of the Code at different points in time. Accordingly, the Government has notified various provisions of the Code from time to time.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) were formulated to carry out the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). These regulations are applicable to the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). These FAQs deal with the overview of the CIRP Regulations and the related procedure involved.

INTRODUCTION

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of May 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and various benches of the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

1) NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LIQUIDATOR TAKEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CORPORATE DEBTOR.

The Royal Court of Guernsey has recently considered an application under the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 (the Law) for the Court to approve a contract for the sale of the assets of a Guernsey company in compulsory liquidation. The decision provides helpful guidance for liquidators and creditors as to the issues the Court will take into account in deciding whether to grant such approval.

Background

The passage and the working of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is an important landmark in India’s tryst with insolvency and debt restructuring laws. Further, the interpretation provided by the courts, from holding that the Code is not a means for recovery of dues to reinforcing the primacy and commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors, along with appropriate and timely amendments by the legislature in line with the object of the Code has certainly aided in the successful implementation of the Code.

The impact of Covid-19 on businesses has already been significant, with several high-profile businesses in the UK and the Channel Islands ceasing to trade or entering administration. The sudden drop in custom as a result of restrictions imposed to protect the community from Covid-19 (the Restrictions) have resulted in businesses experiencing severe, if not crippling, cash flow issues.

In Autumn 2018 the States of Guernsey proposed changes to Guernsey’s corporate insolvency regime to come into effect in 2019.  On 15 January 2020 the States of Guernsey enacted these changes with the passing of the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 (the Ordinance).

The Ordinance brings into effect the proposed changes to create a structured, flexible and transparent regime for company insolvency procedures in Guernsey, as is required in a modern jurisdiction.  A summary of the main changes is set out below.

Administration

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).