The preamble of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) states its objectives, which are maximisation of value of assets, promote entrepreneurship, within the stipulate time frame. Apart from the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Professional (‘CIRP’) or the Liquidation Process, the Code also provides for a class of transactions which can be ‘avoided’ or ‘undone’ by the appointed Resolution Professional (‘RP’) or the Liquidator, by preferring an Application before the Adjudicating Authority.
For industry professionals in India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, has been a game-changer. The introduction of a formal framework for insolvency resolution has brought much-needed clarity and efficiency to dealing with financial distress. However, the 2019 Regulations introduced a new dimension - the ability for personal guarantors (PGs) to initiate insolvency proceedings. This has significantly impacted the role of Resolution Professionals (RPs).
Against the backdrop of recent judicial precedent, this article delves into the need for a group insolvency framework in India, and analyses the report published by the CBIRC in 2021.
Globalisation has led to a significant increase in the number of enterprises which comprise of several closely connected entities that may operate as a single economic unit. As a consequence, difficulties may arise when 1 or more entities in that single economic unit become insolvent as the inability of 1 entity to pay its debts may impact stakeholders in another entity within the group.
On February 21, 2024, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLAT”) in the case of Kiran Martin Gulla RP of Vardharaja Foods Pvt. Ltd. held that when an extension to complete the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is granted by the Adjudicating Authority, then such period will be calculated form the date on which the Adjudicating Authority passes such an order.
Brief Facts
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has come out with certain measures pertaining to the professional services rendered and availed byinsolvency professionals (IPs), and the framework for insolvency professional entities (IPEs).[1]
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), vide notifications dated February 12, 2024, and February 15, 2024, amended the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016,[1] and the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016,[2] respectively, in order to streaml
Introduction
With the objective of facilitating a smoother process for liquidation, ensuring accountability, and bolstering the confidence of stakeholders in the liquidation process, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has introduced changes in the liquidation process. The same was implemented through the IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024, which were notified on February 12, 2024.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is silent on the treatment of a disputed or contingent claim, which is pending adjudication before a judicial or quasi-judicial body, giving rise to a contentious issue. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Limited v.
Rainbow Papers: The Judgment
In State Tax Officer (1) v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1162 ("Rainbow Papers"), the Supreme Court dealt with the question as to whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ("IBC") (specifically Section 53) overrides Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("GVAT Act").
Section 48 of the GVAT Act provides as follows.
Section 48. Tax to be first charge on property: