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

The Power Ministry has issued directions under Section 11 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Direction”), mandating all imported coal-based generating power- plants (“Gencos”) to operate and generate at their full capacity. The Direction also mandates that where the relevant Genco is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”), under IBC, the resolution professional shall take steps to make such plants functional.

Introduction