In a judgement of the Hyderabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) in the cases of PTC India Financial Services Ltd. v. Vikas Prakash Gupta & Ors.1 and Indo Unique Flame Limited v.

INTRODUCTION:

In a recent judgement of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. and Ors. (being Civil Appeal No.7976 of 2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite the latter containing two specific provisions being Section 173 and 174 which have overriding effect over all other laws.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

In the blog post titled ‘Vidarbha Aftermath’, the decision of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”) was discussed and analysed.

A 2 (two) member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLAT”) in the matter of Consortium of Prudent ARC Ltd. vs. Mr. Ravi Shankar Devarakonda & Ors has applied the ratio in the judgment of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. Vs. Torrent Investments Private Limited to hold that the committee of creditors of Meenakshi Energy Limited (“CoC”) in its commercial wisdom can allow resolution applicants to submit revised resolution plans through the challenge process.

The Honourable Supreme Court, in the matter of Abhishek Singh v.Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. and Ors. recently rendered a significant ruling, establishing that a plea for the withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) can be allowed by the adjudicating authority even prior to the establishment of the committee of creditors (‘CoC’).

On 17 July 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgement in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 842 (Raman Ispat). The specific issue of whether Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Appellant) could enforce a security interest created over the assets of Raman Ispat Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) outside of the liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was settled in the negative. More importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confined the applicability of State Tax Officer v.

Introduction

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (“NCLAT”) has in M/s. KK Ropeways Limited v. M/s Billion Smiles Hospitality Private Limited¹inter alia held that an arbitral award cannot be enforced under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) when a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) has been preferred against such an award.

Brief Facts

A single bench of the High Court of Bombay (“Bombay HC”) in Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. M/s Poonamchand & Sons has held that appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ArbitrationAct”) cannot be prevented on account of initiation of proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief Facts

The Supreme Court has, in a recent decision, sought to narrow the discretion that may be exercised by National Company Law Tribunals in evaluating a financial creditor's insolvency application. The Supreme Court has held that once such a financial creditor has been able to establish debt and default, the tribunal is left with hardly any discretion but to admit such an application. This update examines the impact of the judgment against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Vidarbha Industries v Axis Bank Limited.

Introduction