Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: NCLT cannot adjudicate contractual dispute if termination of contract is based on grounds unrelated to Corporate Debtor's insolvency The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgement dated November 23, 2021, in the matter of TATA Consultancy Services Limited v.

INTRODUCTION

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the insolvency law during the month of November 2021.

Introduction

National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) was introduced in the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 2002. However, despite that, the erstwhile Company Law Board continued to function and NCLTs remained only on the statute book. It was only in late 2016 when the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was notified, that the NCLTs became operational.

Exclusive Jurisdiction 

The pre-existing dispute which may be ground to thwart an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 (“Code”)has to be a real dispute, a conflict or controversy. Such conflict of claims or rights should be apparent from the reply to Demand Notice as contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Code. Essentially meaning that the Corporate Debtor is not to raise bogie of disputes but there has to be a real substantial dispute.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) has held that National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot exercise its residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to adjudicate upon the contractual dispute between the parties.

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of RCAP (“Board”).

The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:

The problem of Non-performing Assets (NPAs) in the Indian banking system is one of its foremost predicaments.

INTRODUCTION

Earlier the courts have to be approached for insolvency and winding up process under the Companies Act. Application had to be filed before the Company Law Board or Court for insolvent bank to wind up. Later on came the RDBD and SARFAESI Courts for winding up. In order to avoid such overlapping of laws, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) came into existence. This Code combines collections of existing laws which are amended in order to form a single Code.  

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Others (judgment dated 22 October 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2020) dismissed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had dismissed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal Chennai (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) as barred by limitation.

Facts

INTRODUCTION

今回のニュースレターでは、2021 年 10 月の破産倒産法関連の主なアップデートについて取り扱ってい ます。最高裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）、会社法審判所（＝NCLT）の各裁判所に おいて下された重要な判決についてまとめる共に、2016 年破産倒産法の改正についても解説しています。

1) GOVERNMENT AMENDS THE RULES RELATING TO INSOLVENCY OF CORPORATE DEBTOR TO ENSURE TIME BOUND INSOLVENCY PROCESS.

Notification dated: 30 September 2021.