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.

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”).