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.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (“NCLAT”) has in M/s. KK Ropeways Limited v. M/s Billion Smiles Hospitality Private Limited¹inter alia held that an arbitral award cannot be enforced under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) when a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) has been preferred against such an award.

Brief Facts

A single bench of the High Court of Bombay (“Bombay HC”) in Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. M/s Poonamchand & Sons has held that appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ArbitrationAct”) cannot be prevented on account of initiation of proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the case of M. K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr., has held that, while commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) must be respected, certain factors having a material bearing on the process of approval of the resolution plan should also be borne in mind.

The appeal challenged an order (“Impugned Order“) passed by the Delhi High Court in a writ petition (“Writ“) filed by Singer. Vide the Impugned Order, the Division Bench of the High Court had referred the Writ to a larger bench as it doubted the correctness of the judgment in Continental Carbon India Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2012 (131) DRJ 291 (DB) (“Modi Rubber”).

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in its recent judgment Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki PPL Ltd.

In the case of State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamachari Union & Ors., the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has upheld the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in the matter of State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamachari Union & Anr. (“Moser Baer Case”).

The Supreme Court of India (‘Supreme Court’) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. has held that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) for recovery of dues payable to a secured creditor will prevail over the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSMED Act’).

Brief Facts