In the case of IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund v. McLeod Russel India Limited, the Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) held that in order to determine whether a shortfall undertaking will qualify as an instrument of guarantee as defined under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”), one has to look into the intention of the parties as reflected in the terms of such undertaking.

In the recent decision of IDBI Bank v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that an irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period in view of the amended provision under Section 14 (3) (b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) in the case of Tata Steel BSL Limited v. Venus Recruiters Private Limited & Ors., etc. has put to rest the issue on avoidance applications proceedings surviving the conclusion of corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Introduction

Recently, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT“), in the case of Dharmindra Constructions Private Limited and Anr. vs.

Brief Facts

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 2022, the Indian courts have been guided by the principal of ‘resolution of insolvency of debtor’ over ‘recovery by creditors’ and have refused insolvency applications where they found such application were for recovery of money rather for insolvency of the debtor.

January, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only Between the lines... A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Delhi High Court: Invoking CIRP would not make the dispute non-arbitrable. ⁎ NCLAT: Section 96(1)(b) of the IBC does not stay any future liability or obligation. ⁎ NCLAT: The IBC does not provide for any look-back period on how far back fraudulent transactions can be investigated. ⁎ The changing contours of employment law in India. January, 2023 http://www.vaishlaw.com/ I.

Quite recently, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Tata Steel BSL Limited v. Venus Recruiter Private Limited & Ors., LPA 37/2021, dated 13.01.2023, inter alia, determined, ‘Whether applications for avoidance of preferential transactions can be moved and heard by the Adjudicatory Authority (“AA”) after it has approved the resolution plan of a corporate debtor undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”)?’

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.