Background

Retention of Title (“ROT”) clauses, although still not commonly used in India, are a well-established measure in various international jurisdictions to secure the interests of sellers in commercial transactions. An ROT clause allows a seller to retain ownership or title to the goods supplied until a specified condition, usually payment in full, is met by the buyer.

This article examines whether a delay in implementing the Resolution Plan equates to failure of the plan or can timelines for implementation be extended?

Power to extend timelines

1 | 15 Introduction The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) is a landmark legislation which was enacted in 2016 to put in place a consolidated and holistic legal framework for resolution of stressed assets in India. Since its enactment, IBC has been one of the most dynamic legislations which has undergone several revisions on account of various learnings arising out of resolution of large volume of stressed assets in its initial phases.

INTRODUCTION:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has issued a discussion paper inviting public comments on proposals aimed at enhancing the integrity of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The key measures proposed include:

The legal framework w.r.t. law of insolvency in India has seen considerable progress since the introduction of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Legislature, taking cue from various judgments passed by the courts and the grey areas identified during the implementation of the provisions of IBC, introduced various amendments from time to time. However, notwithstanding such amendments, various legal questions involving interpretation and implementation of provisions of IBC keep arising posing challenges before the Courts to resolve the same.

In the regime of insolvency and bankruptcy law in India, the question of when and how the liabilities of Personal Guarantors crystallize has become increasingly significant. Recent judgments by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Shantanu Jagdish Prakash v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) 1609 of 2024), Mavjibhai Nagarbhai Patel v. State Bank of India & Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 1702, 1711 & 1712 of 2024), Asha Basantilal Surana v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.

Introduction

REVISED INDUSTRY STANDARDS ON “MINIMUM INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND SHAREHOLDERS FOR APPROVAL OF RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS” The Industry Standard Forum (“ISF”), consisting of representatives from ASSOCHAM, CII and FICCI, under the aegis of the Stock Exchanges and in consultation with SEBI formulated the Industry Standards on “Minimum information to be provided for review of the audit committee and shareholders for approval of a rel