The question whether the institution or continuation of a proceeding under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act can be said to be covered by the moratorium provision, namely, Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been a crucial issue in the legal domain. Various High courts have had dissenting opinion in relation to this concerning matter. However the Apex court has now put an end to all doubts and confusions.
Creditors, such as private residential landlords, are being warned about an urgent change to the arrears process, which has been brought about by the government’s Breathing Space initiative.
Breathing Space, or the Debt Respite Scheme, was launched on 4 May 2021 to give people in debt up to 60 days’ legal protection from creditors.
Law of Limitation prescribes the time limit for different types of suits for which an aggrieved person can approach the court for redressal. For Insolvency applications, the limitation period is 3 years.
The automatic stay provided under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is an injunction, arising when a bankruptcy case is filed, which prevents all proceedings or actions against the debtor or the property of the estate without court permission - the so-called “lifting of the stay”.[1]
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of the Federal Court in In the matter of Thousand Angeles Island Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2021] FCA 283, where the Court held that only a ‘theoretical conflict’ existed for a liquidator entering into a deed where he was also bankruptcy trustee of the company’s sole shareholder.
Key takeaways
On March 31, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada awarded attorney’s fees to a debtor under a Nevada fee-shifting statute for objecting to a time-barred proof of claim.1 The opinion serves as a warning that filing a proof of claim for time-barred debt may carry consequences other than claim disallowance despite the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Midland Fu
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that priorities amongst the secured creditors (first charge or second charge) will not prevail in distribution of assets in liquidation, in a case where the creditors had elected for relinquishment of security interest and for distribution of assets according to Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The High Court has had to grapple with the application of witness immunity and the unique examination process under section 236 Insolvency Act 1986. Witness immunity (or immunity from suit) provides that no witness, party, counsel or judge may be liable for words spoken or evidence given in court proceedings; it is an absolute immunity from any civil proceedings based on such conduct.
Debtors who ignore instructions from the Bankruptcy Court do so at their own peril, as a recent case from the First Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates.