The Supreme Court has on 11 April 2022 dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the decision of the High Court of Tripura at Agarthala, wherein the High Court had held that the distinction of decree holders as creditors from ‘financial creditors’ and ‘operational creditors’, is intelligible and takes forward the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, without being discriminatory or arbitrary.

Vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt is a noted maxim which means ‘the laws assist those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights‘ . This is a pertinent principle which applies predominantly while determining if a particular cause of action has been espoused within the limitation period.

Decided on 18 January 2022| Supreme Court of India

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. NCLAT: No possibility negotiating the resolution plan in the intervening period between approval by the CoC, and pending the approval of the NCLT. The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) has in its judgment dated January 27, 2022, in the matter of Union Bank of India v. Kapil Wadhawan and Others [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: Guarantor is barred from being a resolution applicant under Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 if guarantee has been invoked by any creditor, not necessarily being the creditor initiating the insolvency proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated January 18, 2022 (“Judgement”) in the matter of Bank of Baroda and Another v MBL Infrastructures Limited and Others [Civil Appeal No.

The Supreme Court of India has rejected the contention which sought to narrowly define operational debt and operational creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to only include those who supply goods or services to a corporate debtor and exclude those who receive goods or services from the corporate debtor.

The Court noted that a demand notice for an operational debt by an operational creditor does not necessarily need to be accompanied by an invoice, but it may be sent where such debt arises under a ‘provision of law, contract or other document’.

Introduction:

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India, while keeping up the efforts of plugging various loopholes in Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), decided an interesting legal issue relating to the scope of Section 5(20) of the Code, which provides the definition of “operational creditor”.

The Apex Court, in the case of Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited, was seized of the following legal questions:

Decided on 13 September 2021 | Supreme Court of India

The division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC“) comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah in and Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 707 has settled the issue with respect to seeking modification and withdrawal of the Resolution Plan (“Plan“) submitted to the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) after approval by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC“) in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP“).

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: In the event of unsuccessful conciliation, arbitration proceedings must mandatorily be resorted to. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated December 15, 2021 (“Judgement”), in the matter of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. The State of Rajasthan and Others [Civil Appeal No.

INTRODUCTION