The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Voluntary Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2020, establish a procedure for the voluntary liquidation of solvent corporate persons.
Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. NCLT: Corporate debtor cannot be sent into liquidation just because liquidation value is more than the value of the resolution plan. The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata (“NCLT”) has in its order dated April 6, 2022, in the matter of CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. S. S. Natural Resources Private Limited and Another [IA No. 538/KB/2021 in CP (IB) No.
Quite recently, a two Judges’ bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. M/s. RCM Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4750/2021 (dated 18.05.2022), inter alia, determined on the issue of applicability of provisions under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016/ IBC/ Code to a proceeding initiated in terms of the SARFAESI Act, in particular, auction sale.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently upheld a Judgement of the Division Bench of Tripura High Court in the case of Sri Subhankar Bhowmik vs Union of India(1) wherein it was held that a Decree Holder cannot be treated at par with Financial Creditors in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
Facts
The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the judgment New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Limited, dated 27 April, 2022, Civil Appeal No. 3470 of 2022 has clarified the position on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Act”) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
Introduction
2016年破産倒産法については、導入以来、継続して改正が行われてきています。2018年倒産破産法(第2次修正)法(以下「2018年改正法」)により、不動産プロジェクトの割当者(以下「住宅購入者」)は、「金融債権者」の範囲に含まれ、不動産開発業者に対する破産手続を開始することができるようになりました。その後、当該2018年改正法については、Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of Indiaにて最高裁で争われ、最終的に憲法上の有効性が認められました。
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) being a relatively new legislation, has witnessed inconsistent interpretation of its various provisions, especially in respect of certain legal issues, which are grey areas i.e. the issues which are not specifically dealt with under the existing provisions of IBC. One of such interesting legal issue is effect of breach of settlement agreements, entered into between two parties, where one party promises to pay a certain amount to the other party.
Introduction
Insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are overseen by the relevant adjudicating authority. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is the adjudicating authority involved in the insolvency proceedings of companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), which are referred to as corporate debtors[1]. To initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor, the NCLT bench having territorial jurisdiction over the debtor’s registered office must be approached[2].