Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“theCode”).
The extant regulatory framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (“ARCs”) has been amended by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), vide its notification titled ‘Review of Regulatory Framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs)’ dated 11th October 2022 (“Framework”).
Key Changes:
Some of the key changes brought about by the Framework are as follows:
While the inclusion of interest amounts in ‘financial debt’, for the purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), is clearly provided for in the IBC, the interest component in the case of operational debt has always been a point of contention.
April, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Bombay High Court: Arbitration clause can be invoked by assignee of rights under contract. * NCLT: Dissenting secured creditor cannot be treated higher than other creditors under Section 53 of the IBC just because they enjoy security interest. * Bombay High Court: “One-ness of interest”- the touch-stone for defendant to be transposed as plaintiff in case of part abandonment of suit claim. April, 2023 http://www.vaishlaw.com/ I.
Introduction:
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in its recent judgment Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki PPL Ltd.
Introduction:
The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the recent judgment of K. Paramasivam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. & Anr.[1], held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) can be initiated against a corporate guarantor, even if the principal borrower is not a ‘corporate person’.
Factual Matrix and Arguments:
March, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Delhi High Court: Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to set aside sale notice issued by secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. ⁎ NCLAT: Majority shareholders of a company have the locus to challenge an admission of CIRP against the corporate debtor where the admission took place on account of collusion amongst the creditors. ⁎ NCLAT: The nature and character of financial debt does not change upon breach of consent terms.
On July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) passed a judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”), which considered the question whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), is mandatory or discretionary in nature.
Over the last few years, several cases of defaulting real estate companies, including major players like, Amrapali, Jaypee Infratech and Supertech, have been stuck at various stages of insolvency proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended (“Code”).