1．【インド】インド倒産法における倒産申立ての制限措置の終了

ASIA & EMERGING COUNTRIES LEGAL UPDATE の 2020 年 11 月号のニュースレター（下記リンク先参照） でお知らせしたとおり、インドでは、新型コロナウイルスの感染拡大と、それに伴う企業の業績悪化への対策の１つ として、インドの倒産法である Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016（以下「インド倒産法」という。）に基づく倒 産申立てが、2020 年 3 月 25 日からの 6 か月の間（すなわち、2020 年 9 月 25 日まで）の間、制限（停止）さ れており、またその後、インド企業省により、制限（停止）期間が 2020 年 12 月 25 日まで延長されていた。 https://www.amt law.com/publications/detail/publication_0022372_ja_001

Following significant deliberations by the Insolvency Law Sub-Committee chaired by Mr. M.S. Sahoo (Chairman of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India), along with other advisors, including our founding partner Mr. Bahram Vakil, the Government of India, has on April 04, 2021 notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 to introduce a framework for pre-packaged insolvency resolution of micro, small and medium enterprise companies (‘PPIRP’).

PREPACKAGED INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION FOR MSMEs – FIRST STEP TOWARDS A LONG AWAITED LEGAL FRAMEWORk

On April 4^th, 2021, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (“Ordinance”) that introduces the Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (“PPIRP”) for micro, small and medium entities (“MSMEs”). The Ordinance comes into effect from April 4^th, 2021.

Earlier, on March 25^th, 2020, the Government in light of the pandemic stressed economy, had suspended

The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana vs Union Bank of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020] (“Laxmi Pat”) has settled the issue of the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“LimitationAct”) to applications for initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

In a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India (“Court“) in Laxmi Pat Surana vs. Union Bank of India & Anr.¹, the Court has held that the principal borrower need not be a ‘corporate person’ for insolvency process to be initiated against a company which stood as its guarantor, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“).

Brief Facts of the Case

On 26 February 2021 the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowed the invocation of a bank guarantee during a moratorium period imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016. This article summarises the NCLAT’s decision in this case (Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd v JP Engineers Pvt Ltd).

Facts

The conflict between Insolvency and Arbitration is almost of near polar extremes. The difference in focus of the two was well illustrated in Re United States Lines Inc[1] as a:

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”).