Force Majeure in general parlance means any event or circumstance (or combination thereof) that wholly or partly prevents or causes unavoidable delay in the performance of contractual obligations or makes the perform

Below are the key highlights of the newsletter:

• Supreme Court: No provision under the IBC requiring the resolution plan to match liquidation value; and an approved resolution plan cannot be withdrawn under Section 12A of the IBC
• NCLAT: No default by real estate developer if possession delayed due to reasons beyond control
• Supreme Court: Provident Fund benefits payable to contractual employees from date of filing writ petition and not retrospectively
• NCLT: Automatic waiver of legal proceedings is not permitted in a resolution plan

INTRODUCTION  

With the much awaited-judgment in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy regime; the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter “SC” or “apex court”) cleared off the long-standing confusions encompassing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter the “Code” or “IBC”) with its landmark in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Orsi on November 15, 2019.  

Key Highlights

I. Supreme Court: Scope of intervention by High Courts in cases of orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal

II. Supreme Court: State legislature cannot enact law which affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

III. Supreme Court: Difference between inadequacy of reasons in arbitral award and unintelligible awards

IV. NCLT: RP can take possession of a corporate debtor's assets which are subject matter of litigation to facilitate the corporate insolvency resolution process

The enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been often cited as one of the key economic reform of the present government . Undoubtedly the new enactment resulted in large corporate entities queuing up to acquire distressed companies and their assets, put on block following initiation of IBC proceedings, thereby infusing efficiencies in the economy due to likely revivals of such companies .

I. NCLAT approves the resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal in the resolution proceedings in respect of Essar Steel India Limited while modifying the distribution of money to the financial and the operational creditors

The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), has recently in its suigeneris judgment in UI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Roxcel Trading GMBH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 664 of 2019 (‘Roxcel Trading’), affirmed the view of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, wherein, it had imposed ‘moratorium’ on the Corporate Debtor even before initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.  

Analysis of the Judgement- Imposition of Pre IBC ‘Moratorium’  

The enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been often cited as one of the key economic reform of the present government . Undoubtedly the new enactment resulted in large corporate entities queuing up to acquire distressed companies and their assets, put on block following initiation of IBC proceedings, thereby infusing efficiencies in the economy due to likely revivals of such companies .

I. Relief for foreign investors: Supreme Court of India sets aside the Bombay High Court ruling in IDBI Trusteeship Services case The Supreme Court of India in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited (decided on November 15, 2016) set aside a Bombay High Court ruling which had garnered quite a lot of attention among the foreign investors and in the legal circles. N e d e r l a n d s e F i n a n c i e r i n g s- M a a ts c h a p p i j v o o r Ontwikkelingslanden N.V.