IBC
Transitional Provisions in Commercial Legislations: An Analysis
by Priyal Parikh*
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code| Nothing wrong with IBC Notification treating personal guarantors differently from other categories of individuals: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: Adding to the series of verdicts on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the bench of L. Negaswara Rao and
NCLAT | ‘Balance and Security Confirmation Letter’ is sufficient ‘acknowledgement of debt’ so as to extend limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings under S. 7 IBC
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Division Bench of Justice Venugopal M. (Judicial Member) and V.P. Singh (Technical Member) dismissed an
India’s tryst with cross-border insolvency law: How series of judicial pronouncements pave the way?
by Manisha Arora* and Raushan Kumar**
Any creditor including Central/State Government or any local authority bound by Resolution Plan approved by adjudicating authority under Section 31(1) IBC: Supreme Court
“On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished. “
Application under S. 7 or S. 9 IBC is an independent proceeding unaffected by winding up proceedings that may be filed qua the same company; Supreme Court
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed the instant appeal involving the question that whether
Adjudicating authority under IBC may disapprove the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors but cannot modify it: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: In an important ruling relating to the corporate insolvency resolution process concerning the corporate debtor, Jaypee Infratech Limited, the 3-judge
Ineligible promoters under Section 29A IBC can’t propose compromise or arrangement schemes under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013: Supreme Court
“The purpose of the ineligibility under Section 29A is to achieve a sustainable revival and to ensure that a person who is the cause of the problem either by a design or a default cannot be a part of the process of solution.”
‘Commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors is not to be interfered with’; Supreme Court sheds light on the limited scope of interference by NLAT/NCLAT
“The limited judicial review, which is available, can in no circumstance trespass upon a business decision arrived at by the majority of CoC.”
Under IBC, NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising solely on ground of insolvency: Supreme Court
“In all future cases, NCLT would have to be wary of setting aside valid contractual terminations which would merely dilute the value of the corporate debtor, and not push it to its corporate death by virtue of it being the corporate debtor‘s sole contract.”
‘Section 138 NI Act proceeding a “civil sheep” in a “criminal wolf’s” clothing’; quasi criminal proceedings against corporate debtor covered under Section 14(1)(a) IBC : SC
“A Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a “civil sheep” in a “criminal wolf’s” clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court in cheque bouncing cases.”
NCLT | Whether Resolution Plan can be shared with Jet Airways employees or not? Verdict explains provisions revolving around confidentiality, purpose of code and more
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench: The Coram of Janab Mohammed Ajmal (Judicial Member) and V. Nallasenapathy (Technical Member), decided the issue
NCLAT | Is it open to NCLT, while deciding S. 9 IBC application, to pass an order directing parties to go for Arbitration? Appellate Commission explains NCLT’s jurisdiction in such cases
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Division Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson) and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical
Cal HC | Power of Resolution Professional to take control of any asset, is it subject to determination of ownership by a Court or Authority? Discussion in light of Embassy Property Developments (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1542
Calcutta High Court: Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, J., reiterated the decision of Supreme Court in Embassy Property Developments (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka,
NCLAT | Insolvency process proceeded without ‘Demand Notice’ being served under S. 8 IBC due to change in ‘registered address’. Does Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code allow to proceed in such circumstances? Read on
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Division Bench of Venugopal M (Judicial Member) and Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) held that a
Green Channelling of CIRPs: Pros and Cons
Bhumesh Verma, Managing Partner, Corp Comm Legal and Ishika Chattopadhyay, Student researcher, Final year student Department of Law, University of Calcutta
Cite as: (2021) PL (CL) February 71
