Introduction:

The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the recent judgment of K. Paramasivam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. & Anr.[1], held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) can be initiated against a corporate guarantor, even if the principal borrower is not a ‘corporate person’.

Factual Matrix and Arguments:

The case of Uniworld Sugars Limited (the Corporate Debtor) has a long and chequered history which started before the Allahabad Bench of the NCLT and after doing a round before the NCLAT and the Supreme Court, has been finally decided by the Chandigarh Bench of NCLT vide an Order dated March 20, 2023.

On July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) passed a judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”), which considered the question whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), is mandatory or discretionary in nature.

This is the second in a two-part series article providing suggestions with respect to the recent discussion paper published by the MCA on 18 January 2023, proposing several major amendments to the IBC Code, 2016.

MCA’s recent discussion paper has proposed significant amendments to address several nagging issues in the working of the IBC. In the first part of this series, we highlighted some proposals that required a closer look. This piece discusses positive suggestions that could substantially improve the insolvency regime and enhance its efficiency.

In the case of State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamachari Union & Ors., the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has upheld the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in the matter of State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamachari Union & Anr. (“Moser Baer Case”).

The Supreme Court of India (‘Supreme Court’) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. has held that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) for recovery of dues payable to a secured creditor will prevail over the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSMED Act’).

Brief Facts

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was introduced as a one stop solution for resolving insolvencies, which previously was a long-drawn process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement. In 2022, the Indian courts have been guided by the principal of ‘resolution of insolvency of debtor’ over ‘recovery by creditors’ and have refused insolvency applications where they found such application were for recovery of money rather for insolvency of the debtor.

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.

The Department of Telecommunications is seeking to overhaul the law governing the provision of telecommunication services through the Draft Telecommunication Bill, 2022. The Bill also seeks to govern the provision of telecom services and, or, availability of network during insolvency proceedings in respect of a telecom licensee or assignee. While the DoT’s rationale for this is understandable, the proposed provisions may conflict with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. Shah Alloys Limited1 held that (a) in an application under Section 7 or 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the period of limitation would be 3 (three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, i.e.