This is the 1st article in a 2-part series on employment contracts vis-à-vis CIRP. The article examines whether a resolution professional can enforce an employment contract (for an employee, not a ‘workman’) during the moratorium period.

Introduction

The modification or withdrawal of Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code / IBC”) had always been a contentious subject, with the National Company Law Tribunal (“Adjudicating Authority / NCLT”) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) taking conflicting views in the past.

The Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in State Tax Officer v Rainbow Papers Limited (Rainbow Papers Judgment) held that a statutory authority, in whose favor a charge is created under a statute, would be treated as a secured creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). The Rainbow Papers Judgment was distinguished by the Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v Raman Ispat Private Limited2 (PVVNL Judgment).

Introduction

In the case of Dilip B Jiwrajka v Union of India & Ors, a 3 (three) judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“SupremeCourt”) has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Background

11 December 2023 Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India & Ors – the Hon’ble Supreme Court Affirms the Constitutionality of Insolvency Resolution Process for Individuals and Partnership Firms 2 INTRODUCTION In its recent decision in the matter of Dilip B. Jiwrajka V.

In the recent case of Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1281 of 2021), the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (the “SC”) upheld the constitutionality of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

1. INTRODUCTION

On 9 November 2023, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, while disposing off over 350 writ petitions, in Dilip B. Jiwarajka v. Union of India and Ors. 1 , upheld the constitutional validity of several key provisions [Section 95 to Section 100] of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) pertaining to the insolvency resolution process for individuals and partnership firms.

Group Insolvency: Introduction

Group means two or more enterprises, which directly or indirectly are in a position to exercise 26% or more voting rights in other enterprise or appoint more than 50% members of the Board of Directors in the other enterprise or control the management or affairs of the other enterprise.[1]

In a recent development, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed against its decision in State Tax Officer v Rainbow Papers Ltd., which had disturbed the settled position that in insolvency resolution proceedings, statutory dues (including tax claims) fall in the category of operational debt. Instead, the Supreme Court held that statutory dues qualify as debts owed to a secured creditor, and a resolution plan that ignores such debts is liable to be rejected.