This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

In an interesting case involving intersection of insolvency laws with a tax settlement scheme, the Supreme Court of India has on 5 January 2023 allowed assessee’s appeal against the High Court decision dismissing assessee’s writ petition which had sought direction to the Revenue department for consideration of the case of the assessee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (‘Scheme’).

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 Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v.

By recognising the state government as a secured creditor, the Rainbow Papers judgment exposes the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to incongruous uncertainty

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 has been evolving immensely since its inception. Through this Quarterly Journal the firm aims to share recent updates and landmark Judgements pertaining to the Code.

In the previous quarter, the Supreme Court pronounced important judgements on the admission of insolvency applications filed by financial creditors and the validity of resolution plans not providing for payment of statutory dues to government authorities. In arbitration law, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of the court’s power to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and assess the arbitrability of a dispute in an application filed for appointment of the arbitrator.

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: The actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has, in its judgment dated September 19, 2022, in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan [Civil Appeal No. 563 of 2020], held that in deciding cases pertaining to insider trading, the actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential.

Recently on August 28, 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgement in R.K. Industries (Unit-II) LLP vs. H.R. Commercials Private Limited and Others[1], interpreting the provisions of IBC concerning the powers of the liquidator vis-à-vis mode of sale of assets by the liquidator.

In a recent decision, a 3 (three) judge bench of the High Court of Bombay (“Bombay High Court”) in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner of Sales & Anr, has held that the dues of secured creditors would rank superior to dues of state government upon sale of a secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDDB Act”).

The Polyvocal Court