The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same.

The Competition Act, 2002 mandates the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) to regulate large sized mergers and acquisitions beyond high value thresholds (in terms of assets or turnovers) prescribed for “combinations” under the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”) to assess whether such transactions could adversely affect competition in the relevant markets, It is an exante process which requires a deep and forwardlooking economic analysis of the competition scenario likely to emerge post such proposed combination.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT), have recently issued judgments in the case of Rishabh Infra v. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd1., which, despite their partially correct conclusions, appear to exhibit significant judicial overreach. These rulings warrant critical scrutiny on several grounds, particularly because their reasoning raises concerns about the implications for litigants, especially operational creditors, within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

1 EXPLORING THE ROLE OF SECTORAL REGULATORS VIS-À-VIS IBC The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” / “Code”) has emerged as the poster child of an ideal model law empowering the restructuring and resolution of financially distressed firms in a fair, timely and balanced manner by maximising recoveries to the debtors claimants.1 The corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Code essentially functions in a manner as per which a resolution plan is proposed for all stakeholders of the debtor, ideally within an outer timeline of 330 days.2 The creditors and stakeholders ar

The recent judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in  NCC Ltd. v. Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd.[i] sheds light on the treatment of operational creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). This ruling emphasizes the evolving judicial perspective regarding the categorization and sub-classification of operational creditors, highlighting the need for flexibility based on objective considerations.

Introduction

On November 07, 2024, the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) in its judgment in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr.,^[1] directed the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet”), bringing an end to the five-year long saga of efforts to revive the beleaguered airline.

On November 7, 2024, a 3 (three) judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) delivered their judgment in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.1,inter alia, ordering liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet Airways”).

Recently, in State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal 10424 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the issue of certified copy of Order that is filed along with the appeal. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed several provisions of NCLT Rules and NCLAT Rules and held as follows:

i) Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as “certified copies” for the purpose of Rule 50 of NCLT Rules.

On July 23, 2024, the finance minister presented a budget focused on job creation, tax reforms, and support for micro, small and medium enterprises (“MSMEs”). For the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) two reforms were announced: the establishment of an integrated technology platform to facilitate improved outcomes and the strengthening of tribunals and appellate tribunals, including the creation of additional tribunals some of which would be exclusively designated for matters under the Companies Act, 2013.

A recent ruling involved the petitioner challenging an income tax reassessment notice issued after the approval of a resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi in the case of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.,(2024 SCC OnLine Del 5459), dated August 7, 2024, held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, income tax reassessment for periods before the plan’s approval is impermissible.