Introduction

Introduction:

The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the recent judgment of K. Paramasivam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. & Anr.[1], held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) can be initiated against a corporate guarantor, even if the principal borrower is not a ‘corporate person’.

Factual Matrix and Arguments:

The case of Uniworld Sugars Limited (the Corporate Debtor) has a long and chequered history which started before the Allahabad Bench of the NCLT and after doing a round before the NCLAT and the Supreme Court, has been finally decided by the Chandigarh Bench of NCLT vide an Order dated March 20, 2023.

Introduction

March, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Delhi High Court: Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to set aside sale notice issued by secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. ⁎ NCLAT: Majority shareholders of a company have the locus to challenge an admission of CIRP against the corporate debtor where the admission took place on account of collusion amongst the creditors. ⁎ NCLAT: The nature and character of financial debt does not change upon breach of consent terms.

There has always been a matter of contention for a Committee of Creditors, Resolution Professionals, legal fraternity during Corporate Resolution Insolvency Process (CIRP), whether the dues of the Government like Income-Tax, Sales Tax, Value Added Tax etc. are secured debt and whether the Government is a secured creditor.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has answered this question in affirmative in its recent𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝟳𝘁𝗵 𝗙𝗲𝗯., 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹 (𝗔𝗧) (𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆) 𝗡𝗼. 𝟮𝟰𝟮 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟮 (𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗧𝗮𝘅 & 𝗔𝗻𝗿. 𝘃𝘀. 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗺 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗟𝘁𝗱).

On July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) passed a judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”), which considered the question whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), is mandatory or discretionary in nature.

This is the second in a two-part series article providing suggestions with respect to the recent discussion paper published by the MCA on 18 January 2023, proposing several major amendments to the IBC Code, 2016.

MCA’s recent discussion paper has proposed significant amendments to address several nagging issues in the working of the IBC. In the first part of this series, we highlighted some proposals that required a closer look. This piece discusses positive suggestions that could substantially improve the insolvency regime and enhance its efficiency.

Over the last few years, several cases of defaulting real estate companies, including major players like, Amrapali, Jaypee Infratech and Supertech, have been stuck at various stages of insolvency proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended (“Code”).

February, 2023

A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST

KEY HIGHLIGHTS Allahabad High Court: No ipso facto absolvement of guarantor's liability upon approval of resolution plan. NCLAT: The obligation of the adjudicating authority to direct for liquidation shall rise only when decision of the Committee of Creditors is in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Rise of ESG Investing in India: What it Means for Corporations.

For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only

February, 2023