The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been at loggerheads with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on various occasions in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of a distressed entity. Courts and tribunals have passed varying judgments, either giving primacy to the IBC or allowing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a functionary under the PMLA, to perform its duties irrespective of the ongoing CIRP of a company.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 18 September 2023 notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (CIRP Amendment Regulations) amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations).

The key changes brought about by the CIRP Amendment Regulations are as follows:

September, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Bombay High Court: Secured creditor may initiate recovery proceedings against secured asset owned by guarantor even if principal borrower is placed under moratorium. ⁎ Calcutta High Court: Application for removal of arbitrator must be made before the same court as envisaged in Sections 2(i)(e) and 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Introduction

Barely six years since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), the Code has already undergone various amendments from to time, to aid its broad objective of time bound insolvency resolution, maximisation of value of assets of corporate debtors and balancing the interests of all stakeholders. Besides the amendments, judicial pronouncements have also played an instrumental role in shaping the Code in its present form.  

On August 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Vizag Minerals and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravi Shankar Devarakonda & Ors1, while dismissing the civil appeal filed by Vizag Minerals and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

In the matter of Mr. Santosh Mate (Prop. of Mahalaxmi Traders) vs. M/s Satyam Transformers Private Limited1, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT Mumbai”) held that the conversion of an operational debt into financial debt through an agreement is invalid and impermissible as it would defeat the very objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and have the effect of rewriting it.

Brief Facts 

This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 11 September 2023.

In a recent case of Hemalata Hospitals Limited vs. Sh. Siba Kumar Mohapatra RP of Medirad Tech India Limited (“Hemalata Case”),1 the National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi Bench (Court-II) (“NCLT Delhi”) adjudicated on the continuation of related party agreements during the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) and upheld the termination of related party agreements by the resolution professional (“RP”) during the CIRP.

In a judgement of the Hyderabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) in the cases of PTC India Financial Services Ltd. v. Vikas Prakash Gupta & Ors.1 and Indo Unique Flame Limited v.

INTRODUCTION:

In a recent judgement of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. and Ors. (being Civil Appeal No.7976 of 2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite the latter containing two specific provisions being Section 173 and 174 which have overriding effect over all other laws.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: