Set-off is simply put a reduction or discharge of a debt by setting against it a claim in favour of the debtor (or the person otherwise having to pay).

The applicability of the principle of set-off under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IB Code) is no longer res integra and the draconian view of the inapplicability of set-off under insolvency proceedings has not found Thankfully, judicial favour.

Introduction

Given the increased intertwining of national economies, cross-border insolvency presents salient legal and financial difficulty. Upon the existence of an insolvent debtor in more than one country, the necessity to deal with assets and/or creditors creates very complicated jurisdictional problems and other legal issues. Most of the time, a company will operate in several jurisdictions and hence face very complicated transnational insolvency scenarios.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) has recently come up with a proposal for the parties involved in an operational creditor application to explore mediation under the provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023. This is aimed as a precursor to the filing of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’).

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) governs insolvency proceedings for individuals and partnership firms in India. This comprehensive legislation consolidates and amends laws pertaining to the reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms, and individuals.

As of December 2024, insolvencies in the real estate sector accounted for approximately 22% of admitted cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), making it second only to the manufacturing sector that accounted for 37% of admitted cases.[1] The high volume of insolvencies in the real estate sector, the imperative to protect homebuyer interests and specific challenges faced by this sector have resulted in several amendments focused specifically on the insolvency process for real

Introduction

Established in 2005 by the Wadia Group, Go Air, later rebranded as Go First, entered the Indian aviation sector as a low-cost carrier, aiming to provide affordable air travel to the rapidly expanding middle class. The airline was built on a business model that focused on operational efficiency, a streamlined fleet, and competitive pricing. However, despite its early success, Go Air faced mounting financial difficulties that ultimately led to its insolvency.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same.

The Competition Act, 2002 mandates the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) to regulate large sized mergers and acquisitions beyond high value thresholds (in terms of assets or turnovers) prescribed for “combinations” under the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”) to assess whether such transactions could adversely affect competition in the relevant markets, It is an exante process which requires a deep and forwardlooking economic analysis of the competition scenario likely to emerge post such proposed combination.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT), have recently issued judgments in the case of Rishabh Infra v. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd1., which, despite their partially correct conclusions, appear to exhibit significant judicial overreach. These rulings warrant critical scrutiny on several grounds, particularly because their reasoning raises concerns about the implications for litigants, especially operational creditors, within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).