In the recent case of Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors. v. Mr. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr., the Supreme Court re-affirmed the legal position that persons who are merely beneficiaries of security by a corporate debtor do not qualify as financial creditors in the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) of the corporate debtor. However, the Supreme Court also held that a resolution plan cannot dilute the security interest provided by the corporate debtor in favour of such beneficiaries.

Brief Facts

October, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Supreme Court: Dissenting opinion of an arbitrator cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. * Delhi High Court: When there are two interconnected agreements with conflicting arbitration clauses, the clause contained in the main agreement should be given primacy. * Supreme Court: Admission of claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by CoC would result in making CIRP prolonged and inefficacious.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) issued a notification on October 03, 2023 under Section 14(3)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), exempting the applicability of moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC to transactions, arrangements or agreements under the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (“Convention”) and the Protocol to the Convention on Inte

In a case where the Liquidator after issuing the certificate that the appellant had won the auction of the subject property, cancelled the e-auction without giving any justification or reason for such cancellation, the Supreme Court has stated that it is incomprehensible that an administrative authority can take a decision without disclosing the reasons for taking such a decision.

The issue of release/enforcement of third party guarantees as part of a resolution plan of the borrower has been the subject of litigation across various judicial forums in India.

To clarify this issue, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has proposed amendments to IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 as part of its recent discussion paper.

Since the inception of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in December 2016, India has witnessed not only a paradigm shift from the conventional ‘debtor in possession’ to a progressive ‘creditor in control’ but has also produced desirable results under the new statutory debt resolution regime.

In the matter of BRS Refineries vs. . Mr. Supriyo Kumar Chaudhari, the NCLAT New Delhi upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench, rejecting an appeal filed by BRS Refineries. The earlier appeal had challenged the action of the liquidator for JVL Agro Industries Ltd., to forfeit the earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs. 96 lakhs pursuant to the e-auction of the assets of JVL Agro Industries Ltd.

The intention of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) is to rehabilitate the companies and individuals by way of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRP’).

The IBBI Working Group on Group Insolvency (under the chairmanship of UK Sinha) and the MCA Cross Border Insolvency Rules/Regulations Committee having submitted their reports (collectively “Reports”) had recommended the introduction of a framework governing the resolution of enterprise groups under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) in September 2019 and December 2021 respectively.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("the Code" & “IBC”) has been widely acclaimed as a transformative legislative framework in India, representing a significant departure from previous insolvency laws by emphasizing efficient resolution processes and the professionalization of insolvency services.