The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) recently notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 19, 2025 and the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 26, 2025 (collectively referred as “Amendment Regulations”), amending certain key provisions under the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”).
The Supreme Court in the matter of National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. ruled that the moratorium under IBC does not prohibit attachment of properties under the MPID Act3. The bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was addressing a case stemming from the 2013 NSEL4 scam. In this, commodity exchange platform NSEL defaulted on ₹5,600 crores in payments to approximately 13,000 traders.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), heralded a new era for debt resolution in India. Envisioned as a comprehensive framework, it aimed to streamline and expedite the reorganisation and insolvency processes for corporate entities, partnership firms, and individuals alike, with the overarching goal of maximising asset value.
The recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd & Ors serves as a stark reminder of the sanctity of IBC, and the perils of procedural laxity and opportunistic manoeuvring. The Apex court not only disapproved of the powers of NCLAT to judicial review over the decision taken by ED under PMLA but also delivered a scathing critique of the entire CIRP of BPSL, ultimately leading to the rejection of JSW Steel’s resolution plan and an order for liquidation.
Introduction
The Indian skies, once seemingly boundless with potential, have recently witnessed a few turbulent patches. The insolvencies of Jet Airways and Go First Airways sent ripples of concern through the aviation sector, illuminating the financial tightropes that airlines often walk.
Background |
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.
In a significant decision with far-reaching consequences for the financial and insolvency ecosystem, the Kerala High Court (“High Court”) in J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala adjudicated upon the levy of stamp duty on assignment agreements executed under Section 5 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).
The Supreme Court of India’s (“Supreme Court”) decision in the case of Kalyani Transco vs M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited1 and connected appeals raises some serious legal issues. We understand from the public domain that parties are considering filing review and curative petitions. Without expressing any views on the judgement, set out below is a summary of the key findings and directions of the Supreme Court.