Introduction

Recently on August 28, 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgement in R.K. Industries (Unit-II) LLP vs. H.R. Commercials Private Limited and Others[1], interpreting the provisions of IBC concerning the powers of the liquidator vis-à-vis mode of sale of assets by the liquidator.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the resolution professional or the interim resolution professional (collectively referred as RP) is vested with the responsibility of running the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern and conducting the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The RP must also ensure that CIRP is conducted in a time-bound manner and the value of the assets of the corporate debtor is maximised during the process.

In a recent decision, a 3 (three) judge bench of the High Court of Bombay (“Bombay High Court”) in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner of Sales & Anr, has held that the dues of secured creditors would rank superior to dues of state government upon sale of a secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDDB Act”).

In the recent decision of Somesh Choudhary v. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Ors., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi has held that claims arising from the grant of an exclusive right and license to use intellectual property rights falls within the definition of “operational debt” under Section 5(21) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Background Facts

2016年破産倒産法および2013年会社法の下、会社法審判所(NCLT)の命令に対しては、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)に上訴することができます。上訴期間は、破産倒産法においては最長45日、会社法においては最長90日、となっています。また、2016年NCLAT規則(NCLAT規則)において、上訴または上訴時の添付文書に欠陥があることが判明した場合、上訴を行った当事者は、7日以内に欠陥を修復し、上訴を「再提示(re-present)」しなければならないと規定されています。なお、当該期間は、当事者が十分な理由を示した場合、妥当な期間延長することができます。

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. NCLAT: Moratorium under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is no bar for initiation of proceedings under Section 66 of the IBC. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) has in its judgment dated August 4, 2022 in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Jain v. Jagdish Singh Nain and Others [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.

The 5 (five) judge bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has recently decided the long- standing issue of whether re-presentation of appeal constitutes a fresh filing before the NCLAT and its implication on the period of limitation. The NCLAT has held, inter alia, that ‘re-filing’ an appeal (after curing defects) beyond the prescribed 7 (seven) days period will not amount to a ‘fresh filing’ for the purposes of the limitation.

Facts

India has a vast coastline and easy access to shipping routes, yet India contributes only 1% in global trade.[1] Many major shipowners and operators have chosen key international maritime centres such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai as their base for operations.

©Anderson Mori & Tomotsune 2022 年 9 月 1．【メキシコ】倒産事件処理のための特別裁判所の新設 1. はじめに 2022 年 3 月 4 日、倒産事件を特別に管轄する 2 つの裁判所がいずれもメキシコシティに新設され1 、既に運 用されている。 本稿ではメキシコの倒産法と従前より倒産事件を管轄してきた裁判所について簡潔に説明し、上記の新たな 倒産裁判所の概要と倒産法制上の意味合いを解説する。 2. メキシコの倒産法について メキシコの倒産法は、連邦法である Ley de Concursos Mercantiles （以下「メキシコ倒産法」または「法」とす る。）である。日本法と異なり、破産手続も民事再生手続も単独の法律により定められている。メキシコ倒産法は 2 段階方式を採用している2 。すなわち、原則として、第 1 段階として再生手続(conciliación)が開始され、第 2 段階 として破産手続(quiebra)が開始されうる建付けとなっている3。その目的規定においても、債務超過企業の再建 を図ることの重要性が強調されている4 。