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

In its decision in Shailesh Verma, Resolution Professional of Lavasa Corporation Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a 3 (three)member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that continuation of electricity supply to a corporate debtor during the subsistence of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is subject to payment for such supply.

Brief Facts

The amended regulations are laudatory steps which will help to maximise recoveries for creditors since the amendments will lead to concluding the liquidation process in a time bound manner.

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has amended the regulatory framework (“Framework”) for asset reconstruction companies (“ARCs”) on October 11, 2022. Since inception, ARCs have grown in number and size, however their potential for resolving stressed assets is yet to be realised. Accordingly, based on the recommendation of a committee, RBI has reviewed the existing regulatory regime applicable to ARCs and put forth the Framework.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 on September 16, 2022 (“Fourth Amendment”) and the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 on September 20, 2022 (“Fifth Amendment”). The Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment are collectively referred to as the “Amendments”). We have summarised the Amendments below.

In a recent decision, a 3 (three) judge bench of the High Court of Bombay (“Bombay High Court”) in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner of Sales & Anr, has held that the dues of secured creditors would rank superior to dues of state government upon sale of a secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDDB Act”).

In the recent decision of Somesh Choudhary v. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Ors., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi has held that claims arising from the grant of an exclusive right and license to use intellectual property rights falls within the definition of “operational debt” under Section 5(21) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Background Facts

The 5 (five) judge bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has recently decided the long- standing issue of whether re-presentation of appeal constitutes a fresh filing before the NCLAT and its implication on the period of limitation. The NCLAT has held, inter alia, that ‘re-filing’ an appeal (after curing defects) beyond the prescribed 7 (seven) days period will not amount to a ‘fresh filing’ for the purposes of the limitation.

Facts