インドネシア 執筆者: ジェン・エリザベス・ドノウ、ハンス・アディプトラ・クルニアワン 1. 2023 年 KPPU 規則第 3 号及び 2023 年政令第 20 号：新しい企業結合届出規 則及び手数料 インドネシア企業競争監視委員会(Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha)(以下「KPPU｣という。)は、新しい企業 結合届出規則である 2023 年 KPPU 規則第 3 号(以下「2023 年規則第 3 号｣という。)を公布した。2023 年規則 第 3 号は、従前の企業結合届出規則である 2019 年 KPPU 規則第 3 号(以下「2019 年規則第 3 号｣という。)を廃 止し、これに取って代わるものである。以下に、2023 年規則第 3 号の主な要点を簡単に述べる。 (i) 企業結合届出要件：F2F(Foreign to Foreign)取引における地域関連基準 2023 年規則第 3 号によると、全ての取引当事者がインドネシアにおいて資産又は売上げを有する場合にの み、企業結合届出の義務が生じる。これは、取引当事者の 1 者でもインドネシアに資産又は売上げを有する 場合には企業結合届出義務が生じていた 2019年規則第3号に基づく制度と比べて注目すべき変更である。
A 2 (two) member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLAT”) in the matter of Consortium of Prudent ARC Ltd. vs. Mr. Ravi Shankar Devarakonda & Ors has applied the ratio in the judgment of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. Vs. Torrent Investments Private Limited to hold that the committee of creditors of Meenakshi Energy Limited (“CoC”) in its commercial wisdom can allow resolution applicants to submit revised resolution plans through the challenge process.
The Honourable Supreme Court, in the matter of Abhishek Singh v.Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. and Ors. recently rendered a significant ruling, establishing that a plea for the withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) can be allowed by the adjudicating authority even prior to the establishment of the committee of creditors (‘CoC’).
Introduction
On 17 July 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgement in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 842 (Raman Ispat). The specific issue of whether Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Appellant) could enforce a security interest created over the assets of Raman Ispat Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) outside of the liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was settled in the negative. More importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confined the applicability of State Tax Officer v.
Introduction
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (“NCLAT”) has in M/s. KK Ropeways Limited v. M/s Billion Smiles Hospitality Private Limited1inter alia held that an arbitral award cannot be enforced under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) when a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) has been preferred against such an award.
Brief Facts
In a significant order passed on June 28, 2023, in the case of Ronak Industries vs.
July, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Delhi High Court: An arbitration clause contained in a contract perishes upon its novation. * NCLT Hyderabad rejects resolution plan for being incompliant with Regulation 36B 4(A) of the CIRP Regulations. * Madras High Court rejects enforcement of a foreign arbitration award which was passed without considering FEMA violations and fraud in share valuations. * NCLAT: NCLTs and NCLAT have the power to recall their judgments.