Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: The actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has, in its judgment dated September 19, 2022, in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan [Civil Appeal No. 563 of 2020], held that in deciding cases pertaining to insider trading, the actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential.

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.

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: NCLT has discretion to not admit Financial Creditor’s CIRP Application even if Corporate Debtor is in default. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated July 12, 2022 in the matter of Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited [Civil Appeal No.

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: NCLT/NCLAT should not sit in appeal over commercial wisdom of the CoC to allow withdrawal of CIRP. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated June 3, 2022, in the matter of Vallal RCK v. M/s. Siva Industries and Holdings Limited and Others [Civil Appeal Nos.

The Indian distressed assets sector has seen sustained interest from investors due to several legal developments over the past few years. While the outcomes so far have been a mixed bag, a flexible approach and consistent regulatory focus on resolving distressed assets promises to unleash the potential in the sector. 

The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.

As the Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread across the globe, people and businesses are facing unprecedented challenges, both immediate and strategic. Governments in various jurisdictions have announced various measures to try to alleviate the distress caused by the numerous issues that have arisen and continue to arise, particularly around cashflow and employees.

NCLAT: Decree holder cannot be classified as a financial creditor for the purpose of initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 II. Supreme Court: Limitation period for an application under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of CIRP is three years from the date of default III. NCLAT: IBC has no bar for the 'Promoter' to file 'resolution application', even if otherwise not eligible in terms of Section 29A IV. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: An analysis

The 2005 Report of the Expert Committee on Company Law (JJ Irani Committee Report) had noted that an effective insolvency law:

“should strike a balance between rehabilitation and liquidation. It should provide an opportunity for genuine effort to explore restructuring/ rehabilitation of potentially viable businesses with consensus of stakeholders reasonably arrived at. Where revival / rehabilitation is demonstrated as not being feasible, winding up should be resorted to.

Revision of ECB framework: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on December 17, 2018 revised and consolidated the provisions related to borrowing and lending transactions into one single regulation i.e. the Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending) Regulations, 2018 ("ECB Regulations").       

Introduction: