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
Introduction
Ever since the pandemic induced stress began, there has been talk of the Government introducing pre-packaged insolvency resolution processes (“pre-packs”) into the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Prevalent in other jurisdictions either through statutory provisions or market driven mechanisms, pre-packs aim to provide a more debtor-friendly, cost-effective and faster resolution process in situations where there may already be a broad consensus between debtor and creditors for a resolution.
A key concern in respect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) since its inception has been the differential treatment of operational creditors and financial creditors. For context, financial creditors have a purely financial arrangement with the corporate debtor, while operational creditors are those who are owed money by the corporate debtor for the provision of goods supplied or services rendered.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), a financial creditor may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) if there is a default of INR 10 million, by filing an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The settled principle is that an application made by a financial creditor under the Code must be admitted and CIRP initiates against the corporate debtor, if the NCLT is satisfied that a default has occurred in payment of debt.
Since the implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“Code”), the Real Estate Sector has been in turmoil, with many transactions entered into by the Builder(s) undermining and jeopardising the legitimate interests of innocuous creditors. The Code encompasses a collection of transactions that the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) and the liquidator appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) for companies in insolvency or liquidation should avoid, as stated below.
Introduction
Introduction
In a move to accord relief to Licensors with outstanding license fee payments, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) vide order dated 7th July 2022 (“Order”) held that a debt arising from unpaid license fees is qualified as an ‘operational debt’ under Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
INTRODUCTION:
I. Introduction
Proceedings against personal guarantors find their origin in Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the co-extensive liability of a surety. It has long been considered that a surety’s liability to pay the debt is not removed by reason of the creditor’s omission to sue the principal debtor. Such a creditor is not bound to exhaust his remedy against the principal debtor before suing the surety, and a suit may be maintained against the surety even though the principal debtor has not been sued.