A five-Member Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) has held that NCLAT is not vested with any power to review its own judgment, however, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction it can entertain an application for recall of judgment on certain grounds. The Tribunal was of the view that it has an inherent jurisdiction to recall a judgement which was made with procedural lapses, per se, when a party affected by the judgment has not been impleaded. The Tribunal in Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) v. Dinkar T.

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment passed in the case of M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank and Ors., has held that the existence of a financial debt and proof of default on the part of Corporate Debtor are the only factors to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority to admit an Application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

May, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Supreme Court: Directors cannot escape penal liability in cheque dishonoring cases by citing company's dissolution. ⁎ Bombay High Court: A share purchase agreement containing option to sell the shares does not amount to derivative contract, thereby does not violate provisions of SCRA. * NCLAT: Fraud for the purpose of Section 66 of the IBC includes a debt where the debtor has no intention to repay.

The appeal challenged an order (“Impugned Order“) passed by the Delhi High Court in a writ petition (“Writ“) filed by Singer. Vide the Impugned Order, the Division Bench of the High Court had referred the Writ to a larger bench as it doubted the correctness of the judgment in Continental Carbon India Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2012 (131) DRJ 291 (DB) (“Modi Rubber”).

Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“theCode”).

Introduction:

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in its recent judgment Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki PPL Ltd.

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.