The changes proposed seek to address the existing issues and safeguard the interests of stakeholders. The comments on the proposals and the draft regulations may be shared by November 10, 2023.
The sixteen proposals put forward by the Board are as follows: –
No verification of prospective bidders
In a decision delivered by Delhi High Court on June 24, 2024 in the case of The National Sewing Thread Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2024 DHC 4771-DB) it was held that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, the claims not included in the resolution plan stand extinguished, and the same is binding on all stakeholders, including the Central and State governments.
In the matter of BRS Refineries vs. . Mr. Supriyo Kumar Chaudhari, the NCLAT New Delhi upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench, rejecting an appeal filed by BRS Refineries. The earlier appeal had challenged the action of the liquidator for JVL Agro Industries Ltd., to forfeit the earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs. 96 lakhs pursuant to the e-auction of the assets of JVL Agro Industries Ltd.
On June 19, 2024, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) released a discussion paper proposing to bring in significant amendments to the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Process) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations), aiming to streamline the process, enhance its effectiveness and reduce delays.[1] It complements the plan, unveiled earlier this month, to reduce the compliance burden on insolvency professionals.
The role of a liquidator comes with its own set of challenges and the computation of their fee is no exception. This article delves into a legal battle between a liquidator and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board (“IBBI”) concerning the Board’s clarifications[1] on fee calculation. The crux of the dispute?
Recently on August 28, 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgement in R.K. Industries (Unit-II) LLP vs. H.R. Commercials Private Limited and Others[1], interpreting the provisions of IBC concerning the powers of the liquidator vis-à-vis mode of sale of assets by the liquidator.
Since the implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“Code”), the Real Estate Sector has been in turmoil, with many transactions entered into by the Builder(s) undermining and jeopardising the legitimate interests of innocuous creditors. The Code encompasses a collection of transactions that the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) and the liquidator appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) for companies in insolvency or liquidation should avoid, as stated below.
An Insolvency Professional (IP) is entrusted with the management and administration of a Corporate Debtor’s affairs throughout the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). He is responsible for managing, operating, and running the Corporate Debtor as a going concern during the said period by taking over the day-to-day affairs of the Corporate Debtor, complying with all the applicable laws, etc.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”/”Code”) came into force on 28th May, 2016 with the primary objective of consolidating and amending the laws of reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner to maximise the value of their assets. The Code has been evolving over the last six years, with changing scenarios and adapting to practical circumstances along the way. As a result, the Code has undergone amendments from time to time.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Voluntary Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2020, establish a procedure for the voluntary liquidation of solvent corporate persons.