In a recent decision the NCLAT, in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. vs. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. held that even if the creditor realizes certain amounts after the original date of default / invocation, the date of a subsequent demand notice (for the adjusted amount) cannot be treated as the “date of default” for purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) has in the case of SVA Family Welfare Trust & Anr v. Ujaas Energy Limited & Ors inter alia held that a resolution plan can contain a clause which extinguishes security interest, such as personal guarantees, after paying compensation to the financial creditor in whose favour such security interest was created.

INTRODUCTION

One of the biggest changes brought in by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was the demarcation between treatment of interest vis-à-vis financial debt and operational debt. Over time, Courts have interpreted the Code with the aim to strengthen the foundation and resolve uncertainties. One such exercise, which has greatly impacted the insolvency regime, is the inclusion of interest in operational debt.

PHASE 1 – EXCLUSION OF INTEREST

Introduction

Introduction

On April 26, 2024, in what has been hailed as a pivotal moment for Indian aviation and insolvency law, the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) directed the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (“DGCA”) to deregister planes leased to Go First within five working days, providing much-sought after relief to the lessors of the aircraft.

In a decision delivered by Delhi High Court on June 24, 2024 in the case of The National Sewing Thread Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2024 DHC 4771-DB) it was held that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, the claims not included in the resolution plan stand extinguished, and the same is binding on all stakeholders, including the Central and State governments.

The issue of release/enforcement of third party guarantees as part of a resolution plan of the borrower has been the subject of litigation across various judicial forums in India.

To clarify this issue, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has proposed amendments to IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 as part of its recent discussion paper.

The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in the case of Pooja Mehra v Nilesh Sharma (RP for Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd.)1, while examining the validity of the appellant homebuyers' claim, dismissed an appeal for condonation of delay of 552 (five hundred and fifty-two) days in filing a claim against the corporate debtor.

On July 2, 2024, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”), in the case of Sanjay Dhingra vs.