In the recent case of Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1281 of 2021), the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (the “SC”) upheld the constitutionality of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Recently, in the case of Vishal Chelani & Ors. v. Debashis Nanda (Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023), India’s Supreme Court (SC) ruled on the interface of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

Factual background

In the recent case of Uphealth Holdings, Inc. v. Dr. Syed Sabahat Azim, the Calcutta High Court (“CHC”) ruled on the enforceability of moratorium orders from non-reciprocating countries like the United States of America (“US”) in Indian courts.

At the end of December, the Indian government promulgated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 (the “Ordinance”) to iron out certain issues faced by buyers of assets in a corporate insolvency resolution process (the “CIRP”).

While the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) has largely achieved its objectives, certain aspects of the Code have caused bottlenecks in the CIRP, which has, inter alia, deterred last-mile funding to distressed corporate debtors.

On November 15, 2019, the Supreme Court (the “Court”) ruled on several contentious aspects of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) and put an end to the long-drawn-out litigation in the insolvency resolution process of one of India’s largest steel manufacturers, Essar Steel India Limited (“ESIL”). This update highlights the key aspects of the Court’s decision.

Background