In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Rakesh Bhanot v. Gurdas Agro Private Limited¹ (with connected appeals) (collectively “Appeals”) clarified the scope of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

The real estate industry forms a significant portion of the flourishing Indian economy. However, it is also plagued with inordinate delays, cash-flow issues and anguished homebuyers. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has recently added to the array of steps being taken to address these issues. 

Businesses often rely on trade credit insurance to protect themselves from customers’ inability to pay for products or services. An interesting question that arose recently in the Indian insolvency context was that when a creditor’s claim for pending dues is paid out by an insurer, can the creditor, having received such pay-out, maintain an insolvency action against the debtor? The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has answered this in the affirmative.

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment passed in the case of M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank and Ors., has held that the existence of a financial debt and proof of default on the part of Corporate Debtor are the only factors to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority to admit an Application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

The case of Uniworld Sugars Limited (the Corporate Debtor) has a long and chequered history which started before the Allahabad Bench of the NCLT and after doing a round before the NCLAT and the Supreme Court, has been finally decided by the Chandigarh Bench of NCLT vide an Order dated March 20, 2023.

Background

The regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), is largely creditor centric. In fact, extraordinary as it may sound, corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under IBC is nothing short of a puppet show, with the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) as the puppet master. The CoC, comprising of financial creditors of the corporate debtor, is paramount in terms of making the most significant decisions of the process and plays a vital role in resolving the debt.

In a recent judgment in the case of ABG Shipyard, the Supreme Court has decided an extremely relevant question of law concerning the liquidation process under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Premise

Since the advent of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the insolvency law regime in India has been consolidated and uniformized. Courts have repeatedly held that the IBC is a code in itself and that one need not look elsewhere in deciding matters under it.

When the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was notified in 2016, one of its most talked about provisions was the limited scope of adjudication and consequently narrow jurisdiction conferred upon the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) in deciding insolvency cases. In fact, the provisions of the Code in respect of financial creditors were viewed by many as draconian and unconstitutional as the NCLT, prior to commencement of insolvency process, is required to only examine a debt and default and nothing else.

1. The Launch