Relying on Report of Insolvency Law Committee, Supreme Court of India has held that insertion of Section 238A in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is retrospective.
Setting aside the NCLAT Order, the court in its judgement dated 11-10-2018 held that Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to the applications made under Section 7 and/or Section 9 of the IBC on and from its commencement on 1-12-2016 till 6-6-2018 when the provisions of applicability of Limitation Act were incorporated.
In the recent case of Commissioner v Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (Judgment) [Civil Appeal Nos. 6949-6950 of 2004], a division bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) has ruled that waiver of principal portion of loan (which was taken for capital account transaction) by a creditor is not taxable in borrower’s hands under section 28(iv) or section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (Act). Taxability of loan waiver has been a matter of debate and the relevant provisions under normal income-tax computation provide as under: |
A bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul in the case of M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Vs Hero Fincorp Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 15147 of 2017 dealt with the issue that whether an NBFC is entitled to initiate proceedings under SARFAESI Act and arbitration proceedings, simultaneously, with respect to a loan account.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) on 7 November 2017 passed a judgment in the case of M/s Speculum Plast Private Limited v. PTC Techno Private Limited, putting to rest the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The present judgment comes in the wake of the decision of the NCLAT in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
The objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Code’) is multi-faceted. Not only does it seek to promote entrepreneurship, by making availability of credit more transparent, but it also balances the interests of all stakeholders by consolidating and amending the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals, in a time bound manner and for maximization of the value assets of such persons and other related matters.
Introduction
Recently, in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 44 of 2017 (Neelkanth Township), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) addressed several issues with regard to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) has been introduced by the Government of India in 2016, as an Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution in a time-bound manner for maximization of value of assets, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders. The Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the scope and applicability of the IBC[1].
UPDATE
THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 - NEW ROAD AND NEW CHALLENGES
25 May 2016
Introduction
The three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Madura Coats Limited (“the Appellant”) vs.
The Supreme Court of India ("SC") has held that in the event of liquidation of a company, claims of employees have to be considered by the Official Liquidator of the company and not by the Debt Recovery Tribunal ("DRT"). The SC made this decision in the case of Bank of Maharashtra v. Pandurang Keshav Gorwardkar & Ors.1, and laid down certain rules for deciding employee claims.
FACTS