In the case of IL&FS Infrastructure Debt Fund v. McLeod Russel India Limited, the Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) held that in order to determine whether a shortfall undertaking will qualify as an instrument of guarantee as defined under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”), one has to look into the intention of the parties as reflected in the terms of such undertaking.

In the recent decision of IDBI Bank v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that an irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period in view of the amended provision under Section 14 (3) (b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) in the case of Tata Steel BSL Limited v. Venus Recruiters Private Limited & Ors., etc. has put to rest the issue on avoidance applications proceedings surviving the conclusion of corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited1 held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.

The corporate insolvency landscape in India has been refocused with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) in the spotlight. Enacted in May 2016, the IBC has been regarded as a game-changing legislation for insolvency resolution.[1] With the shift to a creditor-centric approach from a debtor-in possession model which seemingly had failed, the IBC strives to conclude a corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) with a resolution plan considered viable by its creditors, failing which the corporate entity faces liquidation.

By recognising the state government as a secured creditor, the Rainbow Papers judgment exposes the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to incongruous uncertainty

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vs State Bank of India & Ors. has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot assume to itself the power of declaring any provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”) as illegal or ultra vires.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court ("Delhi HC”) has stayed 2 (two) summary suits against a personal guarantor on the ground that interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC”) arising out of another creditor’s IBC proceedings has the effect of staying all pending legal proceedings in respect of ‘all of the debts’ of the particular guarantor.

Brief Facts

In the recent decision of Base Realtors Private Limited v. Grand Realcon Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) has upheld the maintainability of an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) relating to the component of interest due and payable, without asking for the principal amount which has not yet become due and payable.

Brief Facts