On November 7, 2024, a 3 (three) judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) delivered their judgment in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.1,inter alia, ordering liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet Airways”).

After a long and arduous litigation Jet Airways’ insolvency woes have finally reached a conclusion. At least that is the hope unless the litigation is taken to the Supreme Court. Having said that, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in its decision dated 12.03.2024, in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 129 & 130 of 2023, approved the transfer of ownership of Jet Airways to the Jalan Kalrock Consortium (“JKC”). This hopefully leads the path for the commencement of a new era for the airline.

On February 21, 2024, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLAT”) in the case of Kiran Martin Gulla RP of Vardharaja Foods Pvt. Ltd. held that when an extension to complete the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is granted by the Adjudicating Authority, then such period will be calculated form the date on which the Adjudicating Authority passes such an order.

Brief Facts

This Compendium consolidates all the case laws and notifications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 circulated as prisms and summarised in the newsletters during the calendar period from January 2023 till December 2023. Application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is extendable only by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act on grounds of sufficient cause The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court ”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs.

In the case of Dilip B Jiwrajka v Union of India & Ors, a 3 (three) judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“SupremeCourt”) has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Background

On October 4, 2023, a 2 (two) judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and Sunview Assets Pvt Ltd. held that the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ("Constitution”), being inherent in nature, are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred by statute.

Brief Facts

The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (“NCLT”), in EPC Constructions India Limited through its Liquidator – Abhijit Guhathkurtha v. M/s Matix Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited has ruled that preference shareholders cannot step into the shoes of a financial creditor unless their preference shares become redeemable.

Brief Facts

In a recent decision in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Another, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has held that the rents receivable by a borrower which was assigned to a lender of a lease rental discounting facility would not be treated as an asset of the borrower, and thus fall outside the purview of the asset and security freeze order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”).

Brief Facts

In an application filed by Vishram Narayan Panchpor, resolution professional of Blue Frog Media Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) in the matter of M/s Blue Frog Media Private Limited¹ for approval of a resolution plan, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT Mumbai”) ruled that the object of Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) requires a resolution professional to conduct adequate due diligence on a prospective resolution applicant and its related parti

In the matter of Mr. Shantanu Prakash vs. Mr. Mahendar Singh Khandelwal (resolution professional of Educomp Solutions Limited) and others, while disposing of an interim application filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT New Delhi”) held that a guarantor can question the valuation at which the security pledged by the borrower with its secured creditor is enforced.

Brief Facts