The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.

Key Developments

1. Supreme Court clarifies the scope of adjudicating authority’s power to decide on a financial creditor’s insolvency application when debt and default have been established

The Honourable Supreme Court, in the matter of Abhishek Singh v.Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. and Ors. recently rendered a significant ruling, establishing that a plea for the withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) can be allowed by the adjudicating authority even prior to the establishment of the committee of creditors (‘CoC’).

On 17 July 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgement in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 842 (Raman Ispat). The specific issue of whether Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Appellant) could enforce a security interest created over the assets of Raman Ispat Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) outside of the liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was settled in the negative. More importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confined the applicability of State Tax Officer v.

Introduction

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (“NCLAT”) has in M/s. KK Ropeways Limited v. M/s Billion Smiles Hospitality Private Limited¹inter alia held that an arbitral award cannot be enforced under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) when a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) has been preferred against such an award.

Brief Facts

In a significant order passed on June 28, 2023, in the case of Ronak Industries vs.

July, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Delhi High Court: An arbitration clause contained in a contract perishes upon its novation. * NCLT Hyderabad rejects resolution plan for being incompliant with Regulation 36B 4(A) of the CIRP Regulations. * Madras High Court rejects enforcement of a foreign arbitration award which was passed without considering FEMA violations and fraud in share valuations. * NCLAT: NCLTs and NCLAT have the power to recall their judgments.

A single bench of the High Court of Bombay (“Bombay HC”) in Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. M/s Poonamchand & Sons has held that appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ArbitrationAct”) cannot be prevented on account of initiation of proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

The Supreme Court has, in a recent decision, sought to narrow the discretion that may be exercised by National Company Law Tribunals in evaluating a financial creditor's insolvency application. The Supreme Court has held that once such a financial creditor has been able to establish debt and default, the tribunal is left with hardly any discretion but to admit such an application. This update examines the impact of the judgment against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Vidarbha Industries v Axis Bank Limited.

Introduction

Revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) proceedings refers to the restoration of the already withdrawn CIRP by a creditor which generally happens upon the breach of the settlement agreement (‘Settlement Agreement’) pursuant to which the application for CIRP also gets withdrawn. In such circumstances, rather than filing for a fresh application for initiation of CIRP, the creditor may seek reviving of the earlier application.