Revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) proceedings refers to the restoration of the already withdrawn CIRP by a creditor which generally happens upon the breach of the settlement agreement (‘Settlement Agreement’) pursuant to which the application for CIRP also gets withdrawn. In such circumstances, rather than filing for a fresh application for initiation of CIRP, the creditor may seek reviving of the earlier application.
June, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Supreme Court: Secured creditor not categorized as either financial creditor or operational creditor is entitled to retain security interest in pledged shares. * Supreme Court upholds the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, which inter alia imposes statutory bar on the auditor(s) for a period of five years. * NCLAT upholds the insolvency proceedings against Go First.
A five-Member Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) has held that NCLAT is not vested with any power to review its own judgment, however, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction it can entertain an application for recall of judgment on certain grounds. The Tribunal was of the view that it has an inherent jurisdiction to recall a judgement which was made with procedural lapses, per se, when a party affected by the judgment has not been impleaded. The Tribunal in Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) v. Dinkar T.
This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 22 June 2023.
In M Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank and Ors, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations inVidarbha Industries Power Limited v Axis Bank Limited were restricted to the particular facts of that case. Therefore, except in exceptional circumstances, National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) must admit applications under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), once the existence of a debt and default is established.
Introduction and background
Introduction
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has released a discussion paper aimed at gathering feedback on specific challenges within the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). In this discussion paper, IBBI has suggested amendments to the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) with a view to address the identified challenges and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the CIRP. Set out below is a summary of some of the proposed key amendments:
The law regarding moratoriums imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code[1] (hereinafter referred to as the IBC 2016) has been often explained and clarified by various judicial pronouncements, which aptly interpret the multitudes contained in Section 14 of the IBC.
In a recent judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), in the case of Somesh Choudhary v Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Anr1, it was held that claims arising out of Intellectual Property Rights would come within the ambit of Section 5 (21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Code) provides the right to a financial creditor to make an application to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor in the event the debtor fails to repay its debt owed to the creditor. The Code as well as precedents developed by insolvency courts have consistently held that the test for admission of an insolvency application of a financial creditor is twofold, existence of a debt and default on that debt.