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

In the case of State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamachari Union & Ors., the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has upheld the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in the matter of State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamachari Union & Anr. (“Moser Baer Case”).

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) in the case of Tata Steel BSL Limited v. Venus Recruiters Private Limited & Ors., etc. has put to rest the issue on avoidance applications proceedings surviving the conclusion of corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

The Supreme Court of India (‘Supreme Court’) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. has held that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) for recovery of dues payable to a secured creditor will prevail over the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSMED Act’).

Brief Facts

In the case of IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund v. McLeod Russel India Limited, the Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) held that in order to determine whether a shortfall undertaking will qualify as an instrument of guarantee as defined under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”), one has to look into the intention of the parties as reflected in the terms of such undertaking.

In the recent decision of IDBI Bank v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that an irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period in view of the amended provision under Section 14 (3) (b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

Introduction