The Supreme Court has held that Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers discretionary power on the NCLT with respect to admission of application under said provision.

The Court was however of the view that such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously and that NCLT must consider the grounds made out by the corporate debtor against admission, on its own merits.

On 05 July 2022, a Full Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Jaipur Trade Expocentre Private Limited v. M/s Metro Jet Airways Training Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 423 of 2021, held that a claim towards unpaid license fees for an immovable property would constitute an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and consequently constitute a debt in default for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

An Insolvency Professional (IP) is entrusted with the management and administration of a Corporate Debtor’s affairs throughout the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). He is responsible for managing, operating, and running the Corporate Debtor as a going concern during the said period by taking over the day-to-day affairs of the Corporate Debtor, complying with all the applicable laws, etc.

In the year 2018, Videocon, an Indian multinational business, ceased operations and declared corporate bankruptcy. The NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) authorized Vedanta Groups, the parent company of Twin Star, to buy Videocon for Rs. 2,962 Crores in June 2021.

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: A liability in respect of a claim arising out of a recovery certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a "financial debt" under the IBC and a holder of such recovery certificate would be a "financial creditor" under the IBC. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated May 30, 2022, in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna and Another [Civil Appeal No.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (the Board) vide its circular no. IBBI/2022-23/GN/REG084 dated 14 June 2022, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (t) of sub- section (1) of section 196 read with sections 7, 9 and 240 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) has introduced the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2022 (Amendment Regulations).

Amendments

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 empowers Financial Creditor, Operational Creditors, and Corporate Debtor to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) upon a default being committed by a Corporate Debtor. CIRP involves the setting up of a Committee of Creditors (CoC) and approval of a resolution plan to restructure the Corporate Debtor, or the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. Often, Creditors and Corporate Debtor prefer to reach amicable settlements instead of going through with the entire CIRP process.

INTRODUCTION

The Apex Court on May 21,2021 in Lalit Kumar Jain V. Union of India &Ors[1] recognized and upheld the Rules on Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) 2019, as notified by the Central Government on November 15, 2019.

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of SIFL and SEFL.

The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:

1) The step has been taken owing to governance concerns and defaults by SIFL and SEFL in meeting their various payment obligations.