The High Court of Bombay (“Court”) in a recent judgment[1] has upheld the NCLT’s powers to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, once a resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor had been approved.

Introduction:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), introduced in 2016, was conceived as a game-changer, a potent tool to expedite debt recovery from insolvent companies within a stipulated timeframe. Eight years into its existence, the IBC has witnessed a mixed track record. While it has successfully revitalised some companies grappling with financial turmoil, it has also faced criticism. The aim of the IBC was not only to aid the revival of struggling companies, but also to enhance the quality of lenders’ balance sheets and empower distressed asset buyers.

The rights of secured creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) have been a matter of continuous litigation and uncertainty. Early on, the challenge presented itself when during the insolvency resolution of Essar steel (India) Ltd., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directed the distribution of resolution plan proceeds equally amongst all classes of creditors, including financial, operational, secured and unsecured creditors.

With the objective of facilitating a smoother process for liquidation, ensuring accountability, and bolstering the confidence of stakeholders in the liquidation process, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has introduced changes in the liquidation process. The same was implemented through the IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024, which were notified on February 12, 2024.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

Introduction

February, 2024 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Supreme Court: Nomination process under the Companies Act, 1956/ Companies Act, 2013 does not override succession laws. ⁎ Supreme Court: Statutory set-off or insolvency set-off inapplicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. ⁎ Bombay High Court: High Court upholds the termination of an employee stating that freedom of speech and expression cannot be allowed beyond reasonableness.

In recent years, a consistent interplay has emerged between the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ("Stamp Act"). This interaction has been further heightened due to the ongoing debate surrounding inadmissibility of documents not adequately stamped. The convergence of these statutes becomes particularly relevant when a document, serving as the foundation for determining a debt, is presented before the adjudicating authority.

This article analyses India’s proposal to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.