In a significant order passed on June 28, 2023, in the case of Ronak Industries vs.
March, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Delhi High Court: Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to set aside sale notice issued by secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. ⁎ NCLAT: Majority shareholders of a company have the locus to challenge an admission of CIRP against the corporate debtor where the admission took place on account of collusion amongst the creditors. ⁎ NCLAT: The nature and character of financial debt does not change upon breach of consent terms.
The corporate insolvency landscape in India has been refocused with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) in the spotlight. Enacted in May 2016, the IBC has been regarded as a game-changing legislation for insolvency resolution.[1] With the shift to a creditor-centric approach from a debtor-in possession model which seemingly had failed, the IBC strives to conclude a corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) with a resolution plan considered viable by its creditors, failing which the corporate entity faces liquidation.
In a recent decision, a 3 (three) judge bench of the High Court of Bombay (“Bombay High Court”) in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner of Sales & Anr, has held that the dues of secured creditors would rank superior to dues of state government upon sale of a secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDDB Act”).
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 has been evolving immensely since its inception. Through this Quarterly Journal the firm aims to share recent updates and landmark Judgements pertaining to the Code.
Recovery Certificate Holder Can Initiate CIRP As Financial Creditor Under IBC: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in its recent judgement Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Private Limited & Others1, has held that an application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) against a corporate debtor is maintainable in respect of a time barred debt, if the debtor has after the expiry of the limitation period, agreed to repay the same.
Brief Facts
Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: A liability in respect of a claim arising out of a recovery certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a "financial debt" under the IBC and a holder of such recovery certificate would be a "financial creditor" under the IBC. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated May 30, 2022, in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna and Another [Civil Appeal No.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons.
Recently, by a judgment dated 30 May 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Courtin the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus A. Balakrishnan & Anr (Judgment dated 30 May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021) held that a recovery certificate issued the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1992 (RDB Act) would qualify as a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and give rise to a fresh cause of action under section 7 of the IBC.