I. INTRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted at a time when there was no singular law which dealt with insolvency and bankruptcy in India. A perusal of the statement of objects and preamble of the Code reveal that it was enacted to consolidate the law of insolvency resolution of companies, partnerships etc in a time bound manner, for maximisation of assets and for balancing of interests of all stakeholders.

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.

The Upper House of Parliament in India, being the Rajya Sabha passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (“Amendment”) on 3rd August 2021 which introduces a Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (“PIRP”) within the scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). The Amendment had already cleared the Lower House of Parliament, the Lok Sabha on 28th July 2021. The Amendment replaces the Ordinance passed by the President of India on 4th April 2021.