INTRODUCTION:
The Upper House of Parliament in India, being the Rajya Sabha passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (“Amendment”) on 3rd August 2021 which introduces a Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (“PIRP”) within the scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). The Amendment had already cleared the Lower House of Parliament, the Lok Sabha on 28th July 2021. The Amendment replaces the Ordinance passed by the President of India on 4th April 2021.
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2017 (‘Code’) was,inter alia, enacted for the resolution or liquidation of companies defaulting on their debts. These debts may include claims subject to an arbitration or sums determined in the form of an award. In the present article, we identify some potential scenarios where parties to an arbitration agreement must be conscious of the interplay between arbitration and the Code.
1.Initiating Insolvency Proceedings for contractual defaults
In 2016, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“IBC”) was enacted with the objective to bring the insolvency law in India under a single unified umbrella and to ensure speedy resolution of an entity (“Corporate Debtor”) which has defaulted in payment to its creditors (including the statutory authorities). Under the IBC, the Corporate Debtor is required to undergo a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).
INTRODUCTION
This newsletter covers key updates about developments in Insolvency Law during the month of June 2021.
We have summarized the key judgments passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) and the National Company Law Tribunals (“NCLT”). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.
1) INELIGIBILITY TO SUBMIT RESOLUTION PLAN UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 (“CODE”) IS APPLICABLE AT THE TIME WHEN THE RESOLUTION PLAN IS SUBMITTED BY THE RESOLUTION APPLICANT.
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (Hon’ble NCLT) in application filed by Mr. R. Subramaniakumar, Administrator of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (Administrator) against the Committee of Creditors, through Union Bank of India & Ors. in the matter Reserve Bank of India (RBI) versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) (IA.NO.449/MB/C-II/2021 in CP(IB)No.
Introduction
I. Supreme Court: Entries made in balance sheet amount to acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated April 15, 2021 (“Judgement”), in the matter of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal & Another [Civil Appeal No.323/2021], held that entries in balance sheets amount to acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“1963 Act”).
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai has held that in a Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, only the debt and default need to be looked in to and that the value of the security would have no bearing on the legal requirement, which when satisfied would trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
The Corporate defaulter had plead that assets mortgaged and or hypothecated to the financial creditor were of a very high value and hence, the dues were secured by the said assets.
INTRODUCTION:
The Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund [AIR 2021 SC 1638] has settled an important question of law: ‘whetheran application filed under Section 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’) can be said to be maintainable in a proceeding initiated under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’)’.