Recently, the Supreme Court in the decision of Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr¹ (“Arun KumarDecision”) examined the interplay between liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). The issue before the Supreme Court was to decide whether a person ineligible to submit resolution plan under Section 29A of the IBC is barred from proposing a scheme under Section 230 of the Act.

When the Corporate Debtor defaults in making payments to its creditors the process of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be initiated against it by its creditors. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter “the Code”) provides the process for insolvency resolution process (IRP). For this purpose the government also enacted the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and  Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereafter “the Rules”).

On November 20, 2020, the CCI approved the acquisition of the (i) retail and wholesale undertaking (‘RWU’); and (ii) the logistics and warehousing undertaking (‘LWU’) of the Future Group (collectively, ‘Target Businesses’) carried out through various entities of the Future Group, by Reliance Retail Ventures Limited (‘RRVL’) and Reliance Retail and Fashion Lifestyle Limited (‘RRVL WOS’) (collectively, ‘Acquirers’) respectively.

In a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court“) in the case of P. Mohanraj & Ors. Vs. M/S Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd¹, it has been held that the declaration of a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“) covers criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act“). In doing so, the Supreme Court has widened and settled the scope of the applicability of Section 14 of the IBC.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to enable corporate insolvency resolution of financially stressed corporate debtors in a time bound manner, so as to maximise the value of their assets. The decision to rehabilitate or liquidate a corporate debtor lies with the committee of creditors (Committee), comprising the corporate debtor’s financial creditors. The Code allows the Committee sufficient freedom and flexibility to explore, negotiate and, subsequently, choose the most suitable option for the corporate debtor.

INTRODUCTION:

In our earlier article, we had written about the Consultation Paper of SEBI proposing disclosure requirements about the approved resolution plans in respect of listed companies that are admitted for corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and also proposing certain minimum public shareholding in such companies.

The Supreme Court, recently, in the case of Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Spade Financial Services Limited ¹, held that the intent of Sec. 21 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) will be defeated if related parties are just determined “in presaenti” i.e., on the present basis. The issue pertained to the interpretation of Section 21 of the IBC, which provides for constitution of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”).

Introduction 

It is safe to say that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” or “Code“) and the regime it has spawned, has effected a complete turnaround in the way insolvency and liquidation proceedings were dealt with in India. The IBC has quickly become the preferred route for creditors and debtors alike, with stakeholders lauding the efficiency of the Code. The standout factor that has contributed to the success of the Code is the strict timeline prescribed and followed during the insolvency resolution process.