In a significant ruling having widespread ramifications, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Court) on 14 August 2018 pronounced its judgment in the case of State of Bank of India v V. Ramakrishnan & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2018). The Court held that the period of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) would not apply to the personal guarantors of a corporate debtor. Factual Background |
In the age of growing competition in the market and ever changing fast paced technologies, the business houses face different challenges some of which may question their very existence. With changing times and circumstances, the corporates are required to undergo a structural modification in order to continue their working and to save their decaying and old outlook. The old standards need modifications rejuvenating with latest thoughts and new fashionable products. It is seen often, recourses to mergers and acquisitions are taken.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) undergoes yet another amendment to ensure enforcement of the provisions of the Code aiming towards the fulfilment of its objective of time-bound resolution process. These amendments will facilitate effective implementation and obtain desired results. The highlights of a few provisions in the said regard are:
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘Code’) aims for resolution of insolvency as opposed to liquidation. The law was framed with the intention to expedite and simplify the process of insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings in India ensuring fair negotiations between opposite parties and encouraging revival of the company by formulation of a resolution plan.
The word “Dispute” is significant for the maintainability of every application filed under Section 9 of the IB Code. It will be not wrong to say that the first acid test for an admission of an application under Section 9 is prima facie
Introduction:
In the recent case of Commissioner v Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (Judgment) [Civil Appeal Nos. 6949-6950 of 2004], a division bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) has ruled that waiver of principal portion of loan (which was taken for capital account transaction) by a creditor is not taxable in borrower’s hands under section 28(iv) or section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (Act). Taxability of loan waiver has been a matter of debate and the relevant provisions under normal income-tax computation provide as under: |
The Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the IBC) represents a radical rewriting of India’s corporate insolvency procedures, enabling creditors to restructure bad debts and rehabilitate corporate debtors within specified timelines.
It is timely, with further reform of the new Indian Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in prospect, to outline our thoughts on some of the current issues on which various market participants have requested an understanding of the approach and learnings of overseas practitioners.
The President of India promulgated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance 2018 on 6 June 2018 (Ordinance) to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). In the short history of around one and half years since the provisions relating to corporate insolvency resolution process under IBC came into force in December 2016, the Ordinance marks the second amendment to IBC. |