Introduction:
Introduction:
The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the recent judgment of K. Paramasivam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. & Anr.[1], held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) can be initiated against a corporate guarantor, even if the principal borrower is not a ‘corporate person’.
Factual Matrix and Arguments:
Following the establishment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, the government has taken two concrete steps to expedite the implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – in particular, the government has:
- appointed members to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board; and
- released draft rules and regulations.
Introduction
Questions around the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 and the Companies Act 1956 have frequently arisen in various high courts and the Supreme Court.
The upper house of Parliament (the Rajya Sabha) passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 on May 11 2016.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was recently announced as the adjudicating authority for insolvency proceedings relating to companies, limited liability partnerships and other body corporates under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016,(1) with effect from June 1 2016.(2) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which will hear appeals from NCLT decisions, has also been established.(3) The NCLT will have 11 benches across India.
Introduction
From an investor's standpoint, a robust and effective bankruptcy regime is a prerequisite for the development of the corporate debt market. However, the existing insolvency and bankruptcy framework is highly fragmented, which has led to complex issues on how to reconcile various statutes with one another.