The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) yesterday issued a clarification stating that no resolution or approval of the shareholders of a debtor company will be required in order to give effect to a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). It appears that stakeholders sought the MCA clarification on account of section 30(2)(e) of the IBC, which requires the resolution...
The Curious Case of Homebuyers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
[Manaswi Agarwal is an advocate based in Mumbai and Aayush Mitruka is an advocate based in New Delhi] One of the crucial issues which has emerged and is widely talked about under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) relates to the interest of homebuyers under the Code. The jurisprudence developing around the Code does not adequately address their concerns, and therefore the law...
Why the RBI and IBBI Need to Work Together to Effectively Handle the Resolution of Stressed Assets
[Anirudh Gotety is a 4th year student pursuing B. B. A., LL. B. (Business Law Honours) at National Law University, Jodhpur. He can be contacted at [email protected]] The introduction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has led to a paradigm shift in the debt recovery mechanism in India. The IBC was a much-needed legislation given the plethora of central and state laws...
Process for Issuing a Demand Notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
[Guest post by Satish Rai, who is an advocate based in New Delhi.] Introduction While the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the ‘Code’) gains momentum with evolving jurisprudence and continual changing of contours of provisions of the Code, a two-fold procedural requirement prescribed for the initiation of insolvency resolution process by an operational creditor requires greater scrutiny. The...
Conference on Insolvency Resolution and Cross-border Insolvency
[Announcement from the Centre for Transnational Commercial Law, National Law University, Delhi] The Centre for Transnational Commercial Law, National Law University Delhi, in collaboration with UNCITRAL, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and International Law Institute is organising a two-day conference to commemorate the 2017 UNCITRAL Asia Pacific Day. The theme of the event is Insolvency...
Strict Interpretation or Purposive Interpretation? Analysing the Sanjeev Shriya Case
[Guest post by Deeksha Malik, who is a is a fifth-year student of National Law Institute University, Bhopal. An earlier post on the topic is available here.] Ever since the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) came into force, the Indian judiciary has been dealing with a number of cases that have required it to interpret various provisions of the Code. A review of the relevant...
Supreme Court Rules that the Timelines for Adjudication under the Bankruptcy Code are Directory
[Guest post by Aayush Mitruka, a lawyer based in Delhi.] Last month, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) in M/s Surendra Trading Co. v. JK Jute Mills Co. Ltd & others and settled some vexed issues which were of considerable importance. The facts of the case do not merit a mention for the purposes of the present...
The NCLAT on the Ability of a Power of Attorney Holder to Initiate Insolvency Proceedings
[Guest post by Richa Saraf, Assistant Legal Advisor at Vinod Kothari & Co.] In Palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. (decided on 20 September 2017), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) held that a power of attorney holder is not authorised to present an insolvency application under sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). It is...
Supreme Court Decodes “Dispute” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
[Guest post by R. Jawahar Lal and Sanjeev Jain, who are Partners, and Apoorva Agrawal, who is an Associate, all at PRA Law Offices, New Delhi. Disclosure: PRA Law Offices represented Kirusa Software Private Limited (Operational Creditor) before the Supreme Court, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi and the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.] Introduction The...
NCLAT Excludes Proceedings under the Constitution from Moratorium
[Guest post by Aayush Mitruka, a lawyer based in Delhi.] In an earlier post, I had discussed the moratorium provision (i.e., section 14) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”), the legislative intent behind the provision and its impact on proceedings for dishonor of cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. More recently, in Canara Bank v Deccan Chronicle Holdings...
Recent Comments