This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 22 June 2023.
In M Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank and Ors, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations inVidarbha Industries Power Limited v Axis Bank Limited were restricted to the particular facts of that case. Therefore, except in exceptional circumstances, National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) must admit applications under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), once the existence of a debt and default is established.
Introduction
The law regarding moratoriums imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code[1] (hereinafter referred to as the IBC 2016) has been often explained and clarified by various judicial pronouncements, which aptly interpret the multitudes contained in Section 14 of the IBC.
In a recent judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), in the case of Somesh Choudhary v Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Anr1, it was held that claims arising out of Intellectual Property Rights would come within the ambit of Section 5 (21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment passed in the case of M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank and Ors., has held that the existence of a financial debt and proof of default on the part of Corporate Debtor are the only factors to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority to admit an Application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
May, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Supreme Court: Directors cannot escape penal liability in cheque dishonoring cases by citing company's dissolution. ⁎ Bombay High Court: A share purchase agreement containing option to sell the shares does not amount to derivative contract, thereby does not violate provisions of SCRA. * NCLAT: Fraud for the purpose of Section 66 of the IBC includes a debt where the debtor has no intention to repay.
The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
Key Developments
1. SEBI prescribes new disclosure requirements and dos and don’ts for the issue of green debt securities
The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
These FAQs delve into some key aspects that prospective resolution applicants must consider while devising a robust resolution plan for a corporate debtor.
Introduction