In order to facilitate the smooth conduct of business transactions the Government has put in numerous efforts in the form policies and regulations. While the greatest threat posed to the lenders in the modern market operations is the impact of non-performing assets or bad loans. In order to maximize the value assets in a time bound manner, the Government enforced the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IBC').

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

On 5 May 2017, a day after the recent Banking Regulation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 (Ordinance) received Presidential assent, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a circular on ‘Timelines for Stressed Assets Resolution’ (Circular). The Circular amends the existing “Framework for Revitalising Distressed Assets in the Economy – Guidelines on JLF and CAP” dated 26 February 2014 (JLF Framework) and mandates members of a joint lenders forum (JLF) to follow strict timelines in implementing the corrective action plan (CAP) or suffer penal consequences for non-compliance.

Introduction:

In its first detailed ruling on some of the substantive legal questions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Apex Court) has delivered a landmark order in the matter of Innoventive Industries Ltd v ICICI Bank and Another with an expressly avowed objective of ensuring that all the courts and tribunals across the country take notice of a ‘paradigm shift in the law’ ushered in by the Code.

Brief Background

Introduction

Section 530 under the Chapter V of Part VII of the Companies Act, 1956 provides for the sequence of the payments which shall be made in the course of winding up of a company. However, Section 529A is an exception to Section 530 which starts with a notwithstanding clause providing for the overriding preferential payments. Section 529A was introduced in the Companies Act, 1956 by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985 in order to provide a protection to the workmen and the secured lenders of the Companies.

Supreme Court issued guidelines on bankruptcy and suspension of debt repayment – you might want to rethink your options.

The highest judiciary authority in Indonesia, the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung, MA), recently issued MA Decree No. 3/KMA/SK/I/2020 on the Guidelines on the Handling of Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Proceedings (the Guideline). This Guideline sets out, among others:

Indonesia has had a bankruptcy law since 1905, when Staatsblad 1905 No. 217 juncto Staatsblad 1906 No. 348 Concerning Bankruptcy was enacted. In response to the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, and the view that the 1905 bankruptcy law was out of date and irrelevant to modern commercial needs, the Government on April 22, 1998, issued Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 1998 regarding Amendments to the Bankruptcy Law. GR 1/1998 was adopted as Law No. 4 of 1998 on September 9, 1998. Law No. 4 of 1998 was eventually revoked by Law No.