Enforced with the objective of time-bound insolvency resolution and maximization of assets, the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”), in order to facilitate the process of insolvency resolution, has provision for appointment of an insolvency resolution professional (hereinafter referred to as “IRP”).

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) on 7 November 2017 passed a judgment in the case of M/s Speculum Plast Private Limited v. PTC Techno Private Limited, putting to rest the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The present judgment comes in the wake of the decision of the NCLAT in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd.

In a recent decision of M/s Ksheeraabd Constructions Private Limited v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that proceedings pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) does not constitute a ‘dispute’ under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and cannot come in the way of initiation of the insolvency resolution process, in terms of Section 9 of the Code.

Background

Introduction:

Incorporated with the objective of promoting maximization of value of assets in a time bound manner, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) works towards effective protection to honest creditors against unscrupulous debtors who may misuse insolvency to evade of their liabilities. The conducive and efficacious implementation of the IBC has instilled confidence in the creditors for a systematic and speedy reform. The remedy under the IBC is also available to the unpaid employees of the debtor which is now being recognized judicially as well.

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.