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

The Polyvocal Court

In its decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., a bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court  held that  “Harmonious construction of clause (10) of Section 3 of the I&B Code read with clauses (20) and (21) of Section 5 thereof would reveal, that even a claim in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority would come within the ambit   of ‘operational debt’.

On August 3, 2022, a division bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (“High Court”) comprising of Justice K.R. Shriram, and Justice A.S. Doctor in the case of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.

The Principal Bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in its recent order, Rakesh Kumar Jain v. Jagdish Singh Nain & Ors., has inter alia held that Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not bar passing of any orders under Section 66 of the IBC against the resolution professional during operation of the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the IBC.

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has held that the Customs Act, 1962 (“Customs Act”) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) act in their own spheres. In case of any conflict, the IBC would override the Customs Act.

On August 11, 2022, a two-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. has observed that the time limit of 45 (forty-five) days prescribed under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Act”) is provided for quick enforcement of the security.

Brief Facts & Procedural History

In the matter of Mr. Praful Nanji Satra v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Ors., the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) observed that insufficiency in payment of stamp duty will not affect admission of corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) for a valid debt.

Brief Facts

The Supreme Court in its recent judgement Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Private Limited & Others¹, has held that an application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) against a corporate debtor is maintainable in respect of a time barred debt, if the debtor has after the expiry of the limitation period, agreed to repay the same. 

Brief Facts