Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was introduced as a one stop solution for resolving insolvencies, which previously was a long-drawn process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement. In 2022, the Indian courts have been guided by the principal of ‘resolution of insolvency of debtor’ over ‘recovery by creditors’ and have refused insolvency applications where they found such application were for recovery of money rather for insolvency of the debtor.

January, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only Between the lines... A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Delhi High Court: Invoking CIRP would not make the dispute non-arbitrable. ⁎ NCLAT: Section 96(1)(b) of the IBC does not stay any future liability or obligation. ⁎ NCLAT: The IBC does not provide for any look-back period on how far back fraudulent transactions can be investigated. ⁎ The changing contours of employment law in India. January, 2023 http://www.vaishlaw.com/ I.

Quite recently, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Tata Steel BSL Limited v. Venus Recruiter Private Limited & Ors., LPA 37/2021, dated 13.01.2023, inter alia, determined, ‘Whether applications for avoidance of preferential transactions can be moved and heard by the Adjudicatory Authority (“AA”) after it has approved the resolution plan of a corporate debtor undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”)?’

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.

The Department of Telecommunications is seeking to overhaul the law governing the provision of telecommunication services through the Draft Telecommunication Bill, 2022. The Bill also seeks to govern the provision of telecom services and, or, availability of network during insolvency proceedings in respect of a telecom licensee or assignee. While the DoT’s rationale for this is understandable, the proposed provisions may conflict with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited1 held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.

Quite recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v.

This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (“High Court”) caused yet another bend in the meandering interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). The High Court held that a moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the IBC (“Section 14”) will not preclude the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) from attaching properties under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA.

FACTS