노동팀 뉴스레터 제11호 (03) 노동칼럼
1. 들어가며
저성장 위기 속에서 기업들은 다양한 방식으로 경영 악화를 타개하기 위해 노력한다. 근본적으로는 새로운 성장 동력 확보가 중요하겠지만, 비용 지출을 줄이기 위한 노력을 병행하는 경우가 많다. 그리고 인건비 절감 차원에서 저성과자를 중심으로 한 구조조정 방안은 언제나 빠지지 않고 논의되는 대책 중 하나다.
2. 저성과자 해고(통상해고)는 여전히 까다롭다
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.
Introduction-
Overview
In a landmark judgment in Re Compuage Infocom Ltd and Anr., the Singapore High Court (“Singapore HC”) has, for the very first time, recognised a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) initiated under the Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) as a ‘foreign main proceeding’ under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (“Model Law”).
Introduction
Introduction
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.