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.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT), have recently issued judgments in the case of Rishabh Infra v. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd1., which, despite their partially correct conclusions, appear to exhibit significant judicial overreach. These rulings warrant critical scrutiny on several grounds, particularly because their reasoning raises concerns about the implications for litigants, especially operational creditors, within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

In recent years, a consistent interplay has emerged between the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ("Stamp Act"). This interaction has been further heightened due to the ongoing debate surrounding inadmissibility of documents not adequately stamped. The convergence of these statutes becomes particularly relevant when a document, serving as the foundation for determining a debt, is presented before the adjudicating authority.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("the Code" & “IBC”) has been widely acclaimed as a transformative legislative framework in India, representing a significant departure from previous insolvency laws by emphasizing efficient resolution processes and the professionalization of insolvency services.