India is increasingly becoming one of favoured business destinations on the international scale. This is attributable to a number of factors including the schemes and policies introduced by the Government from time to time. One of the major reasons for the improvement of the country’s position in the parameter of ‘Ease of Doing Business’ is the development of an efficient insolvency and bankruptcy resolution mechanism.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Resolution
The NCLAT has held that without initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the principal borrower, financial creditor can initiate CIRP against the Corporate Guarantors.
It noted that as per IBC Section 5(8)(h), counter-indemnity obligation in respect of a guarantee comes within the meaning of a ‘financial debt’.
I. Institutional changes
Recently, in K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. [See endnote. 1] the Supreme Court had an occasion to decide whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) can be invoked in respect of an Operational Debt where an Arbitral Award has been passed in favour of the Operational Creditor in respect of such Operational Debt, but, the objections against the said Arbitral Award are pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’).
In order to tackle the problem of unscrupulous debtors escaping and delaying the repayment of debts, the Government of India brought forth the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IBC'). Not only does it seek to promote the availability of credit in a more transparent and systematic manner, but, it also balances the interests of all stakeholders by making the legal framework stronger in terms of reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, insolvent entity in a time bound manner and for maximization of the value assets.
MUMBAI SILICON VALLEY BANGALORE SINGAPORE MUMBAI BKC NEW DELHI MUNICH NEW YORK
Deal Destination
Market for Stressed Assets: Truly
‘Stressed’ or Disguised ‘Desserts’ Spelt
Backwards?
August 2018
© Copyright 2018 Nishith Desai Associates
Supreme Court has held that:
The Supreme Court in its recent decision in K Kishan v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, Civil Appeal No 21825 of 2017, has put to rest the question of whether an arbitral award that has been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by the award debtor can form the basis for an action under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
The enforcement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) has reinforced the resolution of insolvency in a time bound manner and for maximization of the value assets. In furtherance of a more organized resolution process, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board (hereinafter referred to as “IBBI”) brought forth the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”).
Committee of Creditors
The company being an independent legal entity is recognized for distinguished identity. The specialized corporate structure is monitored under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
National Company Law Tribunal