Recently on August 28, 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgement in R.K. Industries (Unit-II) LLP vs. H.R. Commercials Private Limited and Others[1], interpreting the provisions of IBC concerning the powers of the liquidator vis-à-vis mode of sale of assets by the liquidator.

In the recent decision of Somesh Choudhary v. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Ors., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi has held that claims arising from the grant of an exclusive right and license to use intellectual property rights falls within the definition of “operational debt” under Section 5(21) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Background Facts

2016年破産倒産法および2013年会社法の下、会社法審判所(NCLT)の命令に対しては、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)に上訴することができます。上訴期間は、破産倒産法においては最長45日、会社法においては最長90日、となっています。また、2016年NCLAT規則(NCLAT規則)において、上訴または上訴時の添付文書に欠陥があることが判明した場合、上訴を行った当事者は、7日以内に欠陥を修復し、上訴を「再提示(re-present)」しなければならないと規定されています。なお、当該期間は、当事者が十分な理由を示した場合、妥当な期間延長することができます。

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. NCLAT: Moratorium under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is no bar for initiation of proceedings under Section 66 of the IBC. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) has in its judgment dated August 4, 2022 in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Jain v. Jagdish Singh Nain and Others [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.

The 5 (five) judge bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has recently decided the long- standing issue of whether re-presentation of appeal constitutes a fresh filing before the NCLAT and its implication on the period of limitation. The NCLAT has held, inter alia, that ‘re-filing’ an appeal (after curing defects) beyond the prescribed 7 (seven) days period will not amount to a ‘fresh filing’ for the purposes of the limitation.

Facts

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted to facilitate insolvency resolution in a timebound manner, and maximise value realisation for stakeholders. Although it has been amended 6 times since its notification, issues remain. As the Legislature appears set to amend the Code once again, this article examines stakeholders’ issues and explores the issues the amendments may address.

The Polyvocal Court

In its decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., a bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court  held that  “Harmonious construction of clause (10) of Section 3 of the I&B Code read with clauses (20) and (21) of Section 5 thereof would reveal, that even a claim in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority would come within the ambit   of ‘operational debt’.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated May 18, 2022 in Indian Overseas Bank Versus M/S Rcm Infrastructure Ltd. And Another[1] observed that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) cannot be continued once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) has been initiated and moratorium is ordered under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

In a recent order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in Somesh Choudhary v Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Anr. under Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No.