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.
In a recent case, the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), New Delhi in M/s Brand Reality Services Ltd. v. M/s Sir John Bakeries India Pvt.
NCLAT: Decree holder cannot be classified as a financial creditor for the purpose of initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 II. Supreme Court: Limitation period for an application under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of CIRP is three years from the date of default III. NCLAT: IBC has no bar for the 'Promoter' to file 'resolution application', even if otherwise not eligible in terms of Section 29A IV. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: An analysis
In a recent order issued by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT“) in the case of Sushil Ansal Vs. Ashok Tripathi1, the NCLAT has held that a decree-holder cannot be treated as a financial creditor for the purpose of triggering insolvency proceedings against a company.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT) in the case of Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs Ashok Tripathi and Ors, has reiterated that a decree-holder though covered under the definition of creditor under Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not fall within the class of financial creditors and therefore, a decree holder cannot initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor with an object to execute a decree.
Our tracker contains an overview of changes made in light of the Covid-19 outbreak which impose restrictions on creditor rights, relax debtor obligations to file for insolvency or concern other insolvency-related issues. As you will appreciate, this is a dynamic situation, and both the measures announced and applicable legal framework will continue to evolve in the coming days, weeks and months
The past couple of years have seen a number of major airlines collapse, including Monarch and Air Berlin. Unfortunately, this year has already seen the number of casualties pile up with the likes of WOW Air, FlyBMI, Primera Air and Jet Airways all ceasing operations. With Thomas Cook – the UK’s oldest travel operator – the latest in jeopardy, we look at Lexology’s recent articles in an attempt to analyse this trend and explore the legislation being introduced to support the aviation industry.
Need some AIR – can airlines operate when insolvent?