Introduction

On November 07, 2024, the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) in its judgment in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr.,^[1] directed the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet”), bringing an end to the five-year long saga of efforts to revive the beleaguered airline.

On November 7, 2024, a 3 (three) judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) delivered their judgment in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.1,inter alia, ordering liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet Airways”).

India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (code), has revolutionised the country’s approach to insolvency, establishing a structured framework for resolving distressed assets while incorporating elements of inclusivity and accessibility. This legislation has become fundamental for businesses and financial institutions, especially as India further integrates into the global economy. The code’s protection of foreign creditors is particularly significant, as it ensures that foreign investors can confidently engage with the Indian economy without hindrance or undue trepidation.

The real estate industry forms a significant portion of the flourishing Indian economy. However, it is also plagued with inordinate delays, cash-flow issues and anguished homebuyers. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has recently added to the array of steps being taken to address these issues. 

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Anjani Kumar Prashar v. Manab Datta & Ors, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.

Introduction:

The rights of secured creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) have been a matter of continuous litigation and uncertainty. Early on, the challenge presented itself when during the insolvency resolution of Essar steel (India) Ltd., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directed the distribution of resolution plan proceeds equally amongst all classes of creditors, including financial, operational, secured and unsecured creditors.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

January, 2024 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Supreme Court: Arbitration clauses in unstamped agreements enforceable, seven-judge bench overrules ‘NN Global’ decision. ⁎ Supreme Court: Non-signatories to an arbitration agreement can be made parties to an arbitration proceeding under the group of companies doctrine.

This 2nd article in our 2-part series on ‘Employment Contracts vis-à-vis CIRP’ examines the validity of ipso facto clauses which permit employees to terminate their employment on the occurrence of an insolvency event; and acknowledges the duelling priorities of upholding contractual freedom and ensuring that the debtor remains a ‘going concern’.