In the case of Shiv Charan and Ors.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr Vs SACH Marketing Pvt. Ltd & Anr, has established the following principles on classification of a debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”):

In the case of Shiv Charan and Ors. v Adjudicating Authority and Anr.¹, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (“Bombay HC”) inter alia upheld the powers of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (“NCLT”) to direct the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, after the approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT, in light of Section 32A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016² (“IBC”).

In the recent decision of the Anjani Kumar Prashar (Suspended Director of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Limited) v. Manab Dutta1, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that the auction purchaser would also be a financial creditor vis‐à‐vis the creditors of the entity whose assets were purchased by the auction purchaser.

In the recent decision of Ashok Dattatray Atre & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.1 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has reiterated that the extension of payment timelines under a resolution plan does not constitute a modification thereof, and the National Company Law Tribunal has the power to grant such extension even without the express concurrence of the committee of creditors (“CoC”).

Brief Facts

On August 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Vizag Minerals and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravi Shankar Devarakonda & Ors1, while dismissing the civil appeal filed by Vizag Minerals and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

In the matter of Mr. Santosh Mate (Prop. of Mahalaxmi Traders) vs. M/s Satyam Transformers Private Limited1, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT Mumbai”) held that the conversion of an operational debt into financial debt through an agreement is invalid and impermissible as it would defeat the very objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and have the effect of rewriting it.

Brief Facts 

In a recent case of Hemalata Hospitals Limited vs. Sh. Siba Kumar Mohapatra RP of Medirad Tech India Limited (“Hemalata Case”),1 the National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi Bench (Court-II) (“NCLT Delhi”) adjudicated on the continuation of related party agreements during the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) and upheld the termination of related party agreements by the resolution professional (“RP”) during the CIRP.

In a judgement of the Hyderabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) in the cases of PTC India Financial Services Ltd. v. Vikas Prakash Gupta & Ors.1 and Indo Unique Flame Limited v.

A 2 (two) member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLAT”) in the matter of Consortium of Prudent ARC Ltd. vs. Mr. Ravi Shankar Devarakonda & Ors has applied the ratio in the judgment of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. Vs. Torrent Investments Private Limited to hold that the committee of creditors of Meenakshi Energy Limited (“CoC”) in its commercial wisdom can allow resolution applicants to submit revised resolution plans through the challenge process.