The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) amended the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 (CIRP Regulations) on 16 September 2022 (the amendment to the CIRP Regulations, Amendment). The Amendment introduced a slew of changes to the CIRP Regulations. One of the key amendments was the introduction of provisions in respect of the sale of one or more assets of the corporate debtor by way of resolution plans.

The Department of Telecommunications is seeking to overhaul the law governing the provision of telecommunication services through the Draft Telecommunication Bill, 2022. The Bill also seeks to govern the provision of telecom services and, or, availability of network during insolvency proceedings in respect of a telecom licensee or assignee. While the DoT’s rationale for this is understandable, the proposed provisions may conflict with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited1 held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.

The corporate insolvency landscape in India has been refocused with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) in the spotlight. Enacted in May 2016, the IBC has been regarded as a game-changing legislation for insolvency resolution.[1] With the shift to a creditor-centric approach from a debtor-in possession model which seemingly had failed, the IBC strives to conclude a corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) with a resolution plan considered viable by its creditors, failing which the corporate entity faces liquidation.

Quite recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v.

Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (“High Court”) caused yet another bend in the meandering interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). The High Court held that a moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the IBC (“Section 14”) will not preclude the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) from attaching properties under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA.

FACTS

This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

In an interesting case involving intersection of insolvency laws with a tax settlement scheme, the Supreme Court of India has on 5 January 2023 allowed assessee’s appeal against the High Court decision dismissing assessee’s writ petition which had sought direction to the Revenue department for consideration of the case of the assessee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (‘Scheme’).

Introduction

This monthly legal roundup is a compilation of our thought leadership articles and primers published in the month of December 2022 on key legal and regulatory topics. Please click on the access links to read more.

A. INSOLVENCY LAWS

1. Leasehold right: An intangible asset