Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016
2025 SCC Vol. 1 Part 4
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Substantive claims of petitioner whether time-barred i.e. issue of limitation requiring intricate evidentiary
IBBI and INSOL India 2nd International Conclave on ‘Insolvency Resolution: Evolution and Global Perspectives’
The Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) and INSOL India held the 2nd International Conclave in Delhi on 7th December to engage in the path-breaking discourse surrounding the ever-evolving space of insolvency and bankruptcy.
Testing the Limits of the Clean Slate Theory — A Critical Examination of the Madras High Court’s Ruling in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. TANGEDCO
by Ritika Gambhir Kohli†, Akshaya Ganpath†† and Saumya Tiwari†††
‘Arbitrary, illegal and in colourable exercise of power’; P&H HC directs Union Bank of India to refund forfeited amount deposited by auction purchaser
The bank has acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner by claiming that the entire bid amount shall be deposited by the petitioner, while on the other hand, avoiding the question of the supervening legal impossibility, which debarred them from issuing Sale Certificate or handing over the physical possession of the property to petitioner.
NCLT approves replacement of IRP with Insolvency Professional Entity based on CoC’s resolution & IBC’s timeline
The NCLT noted that Form AA, meant for individual Insolvency Professionals, had been modified by the Insolvency Professional Entity to fit its consent as no separate form for IPEs exists.
Resolution versus Penalisation: Is IBC Deviating from its Purpose?
by Shekhar Raj Sharma* and Akshita Grover**
Insolvency Resolution Professional is not ‘public servant’ under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Delhi High Court
“Whether the Insolvency Resolution Professional is a public servant or not according to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 21 of Penal Code, 1860, is purely the domain of the legislature and if required, the legislature may carry out necessary amendments to the legislations.”
Irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantees can be invoked during moratorium period: NCLAT
“The ‘Bank Guarantee’ is a ‘contract of Guarantee’ provided/furnished by the Bank, the “surety”, to perform the ‘promise’, or ‘discharge’ the liability, of the third person, being the Corporate Debtor herein, in case of his ‘default’.”
Approval of Resolution Plan under IBC extinguishes all claims, dispute cannot be urged again before Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
“The IBC and the resolution process does not contemplate matters being left inchoate. In fact, it exhorts one to accept the seal of finality and quietude which stands attached to the approval of a Resolution Plan.”
‘Timelines are of great significance in IBC’; NCLAT dismisses condonation of delay application
Limitation shall commence from the date when order is passed and shall not depend on the date when Appellant came to know of the order.
SC upholds NCLAT’s ‘project-wise-resolution’ process order in Supertech Insolvency; allows it to complete housing projects
The Court said that if Committee of Creditors would be constituted for all projects of Supertech, it will cause immense hardships to the home buyers and will throw ever project into uncertainty.
No embargo on Operational Creditor to file application u/S 9 IBC, even if agreement has an arbitration clause: NCLAT
The scope and objective of the Code is ‘Resolution’, and not a ‘Recovery Mode / Forum’.
To reject application under Sec. 9 IBC, a genuine pre-existing dispute must exist: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that no pre-existing dispute regarding quality of supplied goods exist as the same was not raised before consumption of the goods.
Explained| Supreme Court’s judgment on classifying borrower’s accounts ‘fraudulent’ by Lender Banks vis-a-vis Audi Alteram Partem
‘Audi alteram partem application cannot be impliedly excluded under the Master Directions on Frauds.’
Delhi High Court changes the status of Look Out Circular; directs immigration authorities to inform SFIO about former Director of Techpro Systems Limited arrival and departure
The Court opined that the present case would fall under the Office Memorandum which stated that “where there is no cognizable offence under IPC and other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country.”
NCLAT cannot condone delay beyond 15 days in appeal due to lack of jurisdiction even if fraud has been played
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that as per S. 61(2) every appeal must be filed within 30 days before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
Limitation in Filing Appeal before the NCLAT — Interesting Development
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 8