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

In as much as the Government has been in the consistent process of encouraging business operations in the nation, it also has the objective to create more transparent and systematic mechanism ensuring time bound manner and for maximization of the value assets. One of the major challenges faced by the modern commercial sector is the reposition of faith of the creditors who put their hard-earned investments at the fate of the success of the business transactions undertaken.

Resolution Procedure

In order to facilitate the smooth conduct of business transactions the Government has put in numerous efforts in the form policies and regulations. While the greatest threat posed to the lenders in the modern market operations is the impact of non-performing assets or bad loans. In order to maximize the value assets in a time bound manner, the Government enforced the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IBC').

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).