IBC Archives

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

NCLT | ‘The moment a pre-existing dispute is established, IBC disenthralls itself’– Dismisses Application

National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi: The Coram of Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, (Judicial Member) and L.N. Gupta (Technical Member) dismissed an

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

NCLAT | Matter getting protracted, defeating the purpose of IBC; Orders NCLT to pass orders ‘one way or the other’

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Coram of Judicial A.I.S. Cheema (The officiating Chairperson) and Dr Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) while

Op Eds OP. ED.

Guarantors: The Unspoken Exception to the Clean Slate Theory

by Amir Bavani* and Rhea Jayakumar**

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Jurisdiction of NCLAT & NCLT || Does jurisdiction of NCLAT/NCLT extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of CoC?

Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M R Shah, JJ., observed that, Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

NCLT rejects withdrawal application under S. 12-A IBC where corporate debtor entered into settlement only with a fraction of creditors: CIRP against Rolta India Ltd. will continue

National Company Law Tribunal, NCLT Mumbai: Coram of Suchitra Kanuparthi, Judicial Member and Chandra Bhan Singh, Technical Member, observed that, “…a Judicial

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

NCLT | Malice Intention to start something ‘other than insolvency’ nipped- Releases the Corporate Debtor from ‘rigors of CIRP and moratorium’

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): The Coram of Justice Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha,(Judicial Member), and L.N. Gupta, (Technical Member) while exercising their

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

NCLT | Personal Guarantor not liable to be prosecuted under S. 95 IBC where corporate debtor concerned is not under corporate insolvency resolution process

National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai: Coram of H.V. Subba Rao, Judicial Member and Chandra Bhan Singh, Technical Member dismissed an interlocutory application filed

Op Eds OP. ED.

Claim for Refund of Advance: Whether an Operational Debt

by Rahul Poddar*

Op Eds OP. ED.

Deconstructing the threshold requirements for homebuyers under IBC

by Mitali Ingawale† & Sumit Kulkarni††

Op Eds OP. ED.

Encashment of bank guarantee and relevance of moratorium Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. J.P. Engineers (P) Ltd.: A Case Comment

by Sriharsh Raj±

Op Eds OP. ED.

Transitional Provisions in Commercial Legislations: An Analysis

by Priyal Parikh*

Op Eds OP. ED.

All that is not right with Indus Biotech v. Kotak | Indus Biotech (P) Ltd. v. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund : A case comment

by Renu Gupta*

Op Eds OP. ED.

Are charitable (Section 8) companies covered under the IBC? Should they be covered therein?

by Kumari Saloni*

Case Briefs Supreme Court

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

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

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

Op Eds OP. ED.

India’s tryst with cross-border insolvency law: How series of judicial pronouncements pave the way?

by Manisha Arora* and Raushan Kumar**

Case Briefs Supreme Court

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. “

Case Briefs Supreme Court

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

Case Briefs Supreme Court

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

Case Briefs Supreme Court

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.”