The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was introduced as a one stop solution for resolving insolvencies, which previously was a long-drawn process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement. In Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v.
December, 2022 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only Between the lines... A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ NCLAT: Adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to evaluate the decision of the committee of creditors to enquire into the justness of the rejection of a resolution plan. ⁎ NCLAT: Advance paid towards service is operational debt. ⁎ NCLAT: Provident fund dues are not assets of the Corporate Debtor; they have to be paid in full. ⁎ CCI: Google’s Play Store Payment Policies are anticompetitive and discriminatory.
By recognising the state government as a secured creditor, the Rainbow Papers judgment exposes the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to incongruous uncertainty
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vs State Bank of India & Ors. has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot assume to itself the power of declaring any provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”) as illegal or ultra vires.
Introduction
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court ("Delhi HC”) has stayed 2 (two) summary suits against a personal guarantor on the ground that interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC”) arising out of another creditor’s IBC proceedings has the effect of staying all pending legal proceedings in respect of ‘all of the debts’ of the particular guarantor.
Brief Facts
In the recent decision of Base Realtors Private Limited v. Grand Realcon Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) has upheld the maintainability of an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) relating to the component of interest due and payable, without asking for the principal amount which has not yet become due and payable.
Brief Facts
INTRODUCTION
In its decision in Shailesh Verma, Resolution Professional of Lavasa Corporation Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a 3 (three)member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that continuation of electricity supply to a corporate debtor during the subsistence of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is subject to payment for such supply.
Brief Facts
November, 2022 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only Between the lines... A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ NCLT: A related party of the financial creditor is not barred under Section 29A of the IBC to submit a resolution plan. ⁎ NCLAT: Attachment of Corporate Debtor’s bank account by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization cannot continue during Moratorium. ⁎ NCLT: Indemnity of obligations under an agreement is not a 'financial debt' under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.