In recent years, a consistent interplay has emerged between the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ("Stamp Act"). This interaction has been further heightened due to the ongoing debate surrounding inadmissibility of documents not adequately stamped. The convergence of these statutes becomes particularly relevant when a document, serving as the foundation for determining a debt, is presented before the adjudicating authority.

This article analyses India’s proposal to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.

In the concluding part of our exploration into the 2023 insolvency landscape, Part 5 delves into two significant cases that shape the dynamics of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), offering insights into constitutional challenges and the treatment of properties acquired through auction sales.

Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India

Constitutional Validity of Sections 95 to 100 in Part III of IBC

Background:

Continuing our exploration of the evolving insolvency landscape in 2023, Part 3 delves into two more landmark cases that further define the legal contours of insolvency proceedings in India.

M. Suresh Kumar Reddy vs. Canara Bank & Ors

Clarification on NCLT's Discretion in Admitting Section 7 Applications

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is silent on the treatment of a disputed or contingent claim, which is pending adjudication before a judicial or quasi-judicial body, giving rise to a contentious issue. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Limited v.

This Compendium consolidates all the case laws and notifications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 circulated as prisms and summarised in the newsletters during the calendar period from January 2023 till December 2023. Application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is extendable only by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act on grounds of sufficient cause The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court ”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs.

As we continue our journey through the evolving insolvency landscape of 2023, we will delve into two landmark cases that further shaped the legal framework governing insolvency proceedings in India. Building upon the foundations laid in Part 1 of this series, we now turn our attention to M/s. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd and Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation India Ltd.

M/s. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd.

This is the 1st article in a 2-part series on employment contracts vis-à-vis CIRP. The article examines whether a resolution professional can enforce an employment contract (for an employee, not a ‘workman’) during the moratorium period.

Introduction

The modification or withdrawal of Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code / IBC”) had always been a contentious subject, with the National Company Law Tribunal (“Adjudicating Authority / NCLT”) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) taking conflicting views in the past.

The Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in State Tax Officer v Rainbow Papers Limited (Rainbow Papers Judgment) held that a statutory authority, in whose favor a charge is created under a statute, would be treated as a secured creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). The Rainbow Papers Judgment was distinguished by the Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v Raman Ispat Private Limited2 (PVVNL Judgment).