Introduction
The Supreme Court's recent judgement in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors.[1] has reignited the debate in respect of the timing for Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) approval for resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
A recent judgment by the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has once again brought to light one of the many vulnerabilities in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code). The judgment primarily deals with the termination of a lease during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the effect of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC on leasehold properties.
Case Title: Ganesh Ramkisan Rajale v. Panchtatwa Milk Industries Private Limited
Facts of the Case
Case:Bahadur Ram Mallah (Ex-Director, Uniworth Textiles Limited) Versus Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr
Facts of the Case
ICICI Bank and IFCI Ltd. had sanctioned loan facilities to Uniworth Textiles Ltd. (“UTL”), a company part of the larger Uniworth Group. These loan accounts eventually turned non-performing, and both banks assigned their respective debts to the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (“ARC”) — ICICI's on 31.03.2004 and IFCI’s on 12.01.2007.
Case:Rahee Jhajharia E to E JV v. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh Ltd.)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has ruled that an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), cannot be admitted when there is no direct contractual relationship between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. In this case the Tribunal dismissed the claim of ₹16.08 crore, holding that the invoices were raised by the Appellant against Hindustan Thermal and not to the Corporate Debtor itself.
Case: Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
Facts of the Case
Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) advanced ₹17,53,00,000 to B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) between April 2021 and September 14, 2022, for the supply of coal. However, the Corporate Debtor supplied coal worth only ₹8,45,34,053, leaving an outstanding amount of ₹9,07,65,947.
As of December 2024, insolvencies in the real estate sector accounted for approximately 22% of admitted cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), making it second only to the manufacturing sector that accounted for 37% of admitted cases.[1] The high volume of insolvencies in the real estate sector, the imperative to protect homebuyer interests and specific challenges faced by this sector have resulted in several amendments focused specifically on the insolvency process for real
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) governs insolvency proceedings for individuals and partnership firms in India. This comprehensive legislation consolidates and amends laws pertaining to the reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms, and individuals.
Introduction
Established in 2005 by the Wadia Group, Go Air, later rebranded as Go First, entered the Indian aviation sector as a low-cost carrier, aiming to provide affordable air travel to the rapidly expanding middle class. The airline was built on a business model that focused on operational efficiency, a streamlined fleet, and competitive pricing. However, despite its early success, Go Air faced mounting financial difficulties that ultimately led to its insolvency.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same.