Commercial decisions are largely driven by incentive structures. Therefore, if legal policy favours a particular commercial outcome, the decision-making in that regard must be placed in the hands of entities most likely to be affected by such outcomes. This logic can also be applied to insolvency proceedings. The favoured policy outcome of the Indian insolvency law framework is the maximization of value of a corporate debtor. In the context of an insolvent company, the persons most likely to gain from such maximization of value are its creditors.

It is now a settled position that the prime objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBCâ€) is resolution or revival of the Corporate Debtor; followed by maximising the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor; and lastly to promote entrepreneurship and availability of credit. The proceedings under the IBC are not intended to substitute recovery proceedings.

In as much as the Government has been in the consistent process of encouraging business operations in the nation, it also has the objective to create more transparent and systematic mechanism ensuring time bound manner and for maximization of the value assets. One of the major challenges faced by the modern commercial sector is the reposition of faith of the creditors who put their hard-earned investments at the fate of the success of the business transactions undertaken.

Resolution Procedure

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').

Recently, in K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. [See endnote. 1] the Supreme Court had an occasion to decide whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) can be invoked in respect of an Operational Debt where an Arbitral Award has been passed in favour of the Operational Creditor in respect of such Operational Debt, but, the objections against the said Arbitral Award are pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’).

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘Code’) aims for resolution of insolvency as opposed to liquidation. The law was framed with the intention to expedite and simplify the process of insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings in India ensuring fair negotiations between opposite parties and encouraging revival of the company by formulation of a resolution plan.

Background

The partly liberalized Indian economy has been aptly referred to in the Economic Survey of India 2015-16 as one that had transitioned from ‘socialism with limited entry to “marketism” without exit.

Given the vexed ‘twin balance sheet’ problem chafing both banks and corporates in India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) was a critical structural reform. Many issues have surfaced since the Code was operationalised and the courts and the Central Government have stepped in to iron out such issues in the last one year.

Introduction

The term ‘dispute’ assumes great importance under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This is because under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code, an operational creditor’s application for initiating corporate insolvency is liable to be rejected if a ‘notice of dispute’ in relation to ‘existence of a dispute’ is received by such an operational creditor from a corporate debtor. The term ‘dispute’ is defined in Section 5(6) and referred to in Section 8(2) of the Code in the following manner: