Key Highlights
I. Supreme Court: Scope of intervention by High Courts in cases of orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal
II. Supreme Court: State legislature cannot enact law which affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
III. Supreme Court: Difference between inadequacy of reasons in arbitral award and unintelligible awards
IV. NCLT: RP can take possession of a corporate debtor's assets which are subject matter of litigation to facilitate the corporate insolvency resolution process
I. NCLAT approves the resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal in the resolution proceedings in respect of Essar Steel India Limited while modifying the distribution of money to the financial and the operational creditors
The Supreme Court in its recent decision in K Kishan v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, Civil Appeal No 21825 of 2017, has put to rest the question of whether an arbitral award that has been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by the award debtor can form the basis for an action under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
Supreme Court has held that:
TIME LIMIT FOR RECTIFICATION AND ADMISSION IS DIRECTORY
It is pertinent to note thatSection 9 (5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides the time limit for admission and rejection of the application and also the time limit for rectification of the defect in the application:
SECTION 9(5)
A bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul in the case of M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Vs Hero Fincorp Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 15147 of 2017 dealt with the issue that whether an NBFC is entitled to initiate proceedings under SARFAESI Act and arbitration proceedings, simultaneously, with respect to a loan account.
In a recent decision of M/s Ksheeraabd Constructions Private Limited v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that proceedings pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) does not constitute a ‘dispute’ under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and cannot come in the way of initiation of the insolvency resolution process, in terms of Section 9 of the Code.
Background
Introduction:
On 21 September 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment regarding the interpretation of the terms “dispute” and “existence of disputes” and the extent of the authority of the National Company Law Tribunal (Adjudicating Authority) to ascertain if a dispute exists under Section 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code). The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd. (Mobilox) against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dated 24 May 2017. |
Key developments in the Indian legal landscape in 2016
From the Startup India campaign launched in January 2016 to the coming into force of substantial provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in December 2016, the legal landscape in India has witnessed some crucial developments this past year. In this LawFlash, we describe briefly what we consider to be some of the key legal and regulatory developments in India in 2016.
Arbitration Act