Supreme Court: Interest free term loans advanced to a corporate person are not excluded from the purview of a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. II. Bombay High Court: A secured debt shall take priority over the ‘Government’ dues/tax dues under the SARFAESI Act. III. NCLAT: Rejects application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on grounds of collusion between the corporate debtor and the financial creditor. IV.

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of July 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

1) DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY OPERATIONAL CREDITOR BASED ON INVOICES CAN BE ISSUED IN FORM-3 INSTEAD OF FORM-4.

The Supreme Court of India (SC) in Orator Marketing Private Limited v Samtex Desinz Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 2021, judgment dated 26th July 2021 has held that an interest free term loan constitutes a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The IBC provides that a financial debt is “a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money” furthered by an inclusive list of examples that may be considered as a financial debt.

The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2017 (‘Code’) was,inter alia, enacted for the resolution or liquidation of companies defaulting on their debts. These debts may include claims subject to an arbitration or sums determined in the form of an award. In the present article, we identify some potential scenarios where parties to an arbitration agreement must be conscious of the interplay between arbitration and the Code.

1.Initiating Insolvency Proceedings for contractual defaults

I. Supreme Court: Entries made in balance sheet amount to acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated April 15, 2021 (“Judgement”), in the matter of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal & Another [Civil Appeal No.323/2021], held that entries in balance sheets amount to acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“1963 Act”).

On 21 May 2021, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors, upheld the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) which permitted banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company. Under the Code, the Government of India (“Government”) has been conferred powers to enforce certain provisions of the Code at different points in time. Accordingly, the Government has notified various provisions of the Code from time to time.

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court (SC), by a common judgement in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. Bishal Jaiswal (15 April 2020, Civil Appeal No 323 of 2021) and related matters, has held that the  for the purposes of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), balance sheet entries  could constitute an acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act). 

Introduction

INTRODUCTION:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) was enacted by the Parliament with the aim to provide and revamp the framework for insolvency resolution in India in a time bound manner and for the promotion of entrepreneurship, credit availability and balancing of different interests of each and every stakeholder of a Company.