Introduction –
Introduction –
The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCLT’), in the case of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (herein after referred to as AARCL) vs Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd (herein after referred to as HGPL)[1], entertained the first resolution plan filed before it, which was the first to have been submitted since the implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
FACTS
Hamera International Private Limited executed an agreement with, Macquarie Bank Limited, Singapore (hereinafter called ‘appellant’), where the appellant purchased the original supplier's right, title and interest in a supply agreement in favour of Shilpi Cable Technologies (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”).
Background:
Background
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) consolidated the archaic insolvency laws, provided a consolidated legislation and revolutionised the insolvency regime in India. Undoubtedly, the Code has had a significant impact on the way corporate India functions. It has been almost two years since the Code came into effect and in the year 2017 some significant amendments have been made to the Code based on inputs received from various market participants.
Introduction
In proceedings with regards to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) the Bombay High Court has passed a landmark judgement ruling that an application under IBC may be made even in cases where a Winding-Up petition has been admitted by a Company Court. Such an Application under the IBC, would not be permitted, only in such a scenario where final order of Winding-Up has been passed under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Brief Facts of the Case
Introduction
In proceedings with regards to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) the Bombay High Court has passed a landmark judgement ruling that an application under IBC may be made even in cases where a Winding-Up petition has been admitted by a Company Court. Such an Application under the IBC, would not be permitted, only in such a scenario where final order of Winding-Up has been passed under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Brief Facts of the Case
On 15 December 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered a landmark judgment in Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cables, Civil Appeal 15135/2017 on whether Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code) is mandatory and whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Macquarie Bank against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) in Shilpi Cable Technologies v.
Introduction:
The objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Code’) is multi-faceted. Not only does it seek to promote entrepreneurship, by making availability of credit more transparent, but it also balances the interests of all stakeholders by consolidating and amending the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals, in a time bound manner and for maximization of the value assets of such persons and other related matters.