The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 13 November 2020 issued the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2020 (Amendment) which introduced seminal changes to the liquidation regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Amendment has been introduced on the back of the discussion paper issued by IBBI on 26 August 2020 on Corporate Liquidation Process (Discussion Paper).

Abhishek Tripathi and Mani Gupta, Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors

This is an extract from the 2021 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

In summary

The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was introduced when insolvency resolution in India took around 4 years on an average. Therefore, completing the resolution process within a fixed timeline was at the heart of the new framework. But the instances of delays still kept cropping up and the code has been amended continually to impose stricter time frames and ensure compliance.

The aim of this Article is to analyze the timelines provided for corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the IBC and the latest amendments thereon.

The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala comprising of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly in Sulochana Gupta and another v. RBG Enterprises Pvt Ltd and others, has recently ruled that the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked to challenge an order passed by National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NCLT”).

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has passed an order reiterating that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the successful resolution applicant cannot be permitted to be withdraw its plan.

RELEVANT FACTS

In a recent case Sagufa Ahmed & ors. V. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & ors.^[1], the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice S.A.

A contentious issue in the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) has been the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Section 18), which stipulates that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time of the acknowledgement of liability in writing before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation.

State Bank of India v. M/s. Metenere Limited^[1]

In a recent case, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), vide its ruling dated May 22, 2020 upheld the order passed by respective National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") dated January 4, 2020 with respect to substitution of appointment of an ex-employee of the Financial Creditor as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Factual Background

Introduction

In a recent case, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) permitted exit or withdrawal from Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") after Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP") was appointed and moratorium was imposed in the case. The said order by NCLAT acted as a relief to corporate debtors, as it has paved way for out of Court settlement between the disputed parties. The said order was passed by NCLAT in the case of Vivek Bansal vs Burda Druck India Pvt. Ltd.