Corporate Law : NCLAT held that the CoC may decide to liquidate a corporate debtor under Section 33(2) before inviting resolution plans, with limi...
Corporate Law : This article explains why the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code places commercial decision-making in the hands of the Committee of Cr...
Corporate Law : The article explains how the NCLAT interpreted Section 66(1) to extend liability beyond company insiders to third parties who know...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that individuals investing for financial returns rather than home ownership cannot invoke Section 7 of the ...
Corporate Law : The High Court held that a company cannot shift its registered office after approval of a resolution plan when appeals against the...
Corporate Law : IBBI has proposed amendments to CIRP, Liquidation, and Personal Guarantor Regulations to improve valuation, clarify RP duties, sim...
Corporate Law : The proposed amendments require comprehensive project-wise disclosures, technical assessments, and mandatory information in resolu...
Corporate Law : The IBBI has announced contractual vacancies for Research Associates and Consultants in law and business management disciplines. T...
Corporate Law : 2026 Guidelines streamline selection of Insolvency Professionals for IRP, RP, Liquidator, and Bankruptcy Trustee roles, ensuring t...
Corporate Law : The amendments replace the consultation committee with CoC oversight, giving creditors greater control over liquidation decisions....
Corporate Law : Bombay HC held that Section 14 IBC moratorium does not prevent deemed conveyance under Section 11 MOFA and restored the society's ...
Company Law : Kerala HC held Rule 55 empowers NCLT to accept additional pleadings, setting aside refusal to entertain further objections in a Se...
Corporate Law : NCLAT held that invoice discounting through the TReDS platform does not convert operational debt into financial debt. The appeal w...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that a Section 7 IBC application can proceed despite pending winding-up proceedings where no irreversible stage...
Corporate Law : NCLT admitted the Section 9 petition after holding that campaign-related emails did not constitute a genuine pre-existing dispute....
Corporate Law : The IBBI First Appellate Authority held that although the CPIO failed to respond within the statutory 30-day period under the RTI ...
Corporate Law : IBBI cancelled an IP’s registration over systemic CIRP misuse, flawed valuations, non-disclosures, compliance failures and lack ...
Corporate Law : IBBI has released the Phase 10 syllabus for the Limited Insolvency Examination, effective from October 1, 2026, to reflect evolvin...
Corporate Law : The First Appellate Authority directed the CPIO to dispose of the RTI application after finding it was not decided within the 30-d...
Corporate Law : The Disciplinary Committee found that the Resolution Professional delayed admission of a financial creditor's claim and failed to ...
Regulation 26(4) of the CIRP Regulations makes it mandatory for the RP to make disclosure about the voting pattern, the objective being to ensure transparency in the process and boost confidence among the CoC members. As per the regulation 26(4) of CIRP Regulations, Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma was to disclose the names of the members […]
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (IBBI) Request for Proposal for Appointment of Internal Auditor to IBBI 1 INTRODUCTION a. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India was established on 1st October, 2016 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). It is a key pillar of the ecosystem responsible for implementation of the Code […]
1. Background of Debate Effectuated December 2016, the Sick Industrial Companies Act[1] was repealed to pave way to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016[2] (hereinafter “IBC”). The objects of the two acts were different in one substantial aspect: the latter focused on reviving a company so as it continues to survive as a going concern, aimed to act as a beneficial legislation and not merely focused on recovery. Recovery however being quintessential to IBC we saw that it and the Limitation Act, 1963[3] (hereinafter “Limitation Act”), which bars the right to recover money claims after a time lapse of 3 years from the cause of action, came face to face with each other and so became a long debate culminating finally this year. This debate arose on two counts. First, IBC was always meant to be a complete code in itself, an exhaustive code on the subject matter[4] and so the remedies given thereunder comprehensively cover all matters that it apprehends. Thus, it was naturally understood that IBC is not guided by any other legislative enactment. However it does not have a clause expressly barring application of limitation act which attracts Section 29 of the limitation act which brings us to the second. Second, the mandate of Section 29 of the Limitation Act makes it abundantly clear that all legislative enactments are to be guided by the Limitation Act “unless such enactment expressly excludes itself”. Now, even the words “expressly excluded” in the section have been interpreted to have a wider import by the Supreme Court (hereinafter “SC”) giving itself the power to interpret by reading of all the provisions of an act to infer such exclusion[5]. The interpretation of such an intention or otherwise rested again with the apex court. 2. Prior to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 Initially the NCLT held in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd. v Urban Infrastructure Trustee Ltd.[6] that the “provisions of the IBC cannot be shackled by the Limitation Act”. The court noted: “There is nothing on the record that Limitation Act, 2013 is applicable to IBC. Learned Counsel for the appellant also failed to lay hand on any of the provision of IBC to suggest that the Law of Limitation Act is applicable. The IBC, 2016 is not an Act for recovery of money claim, it relates to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. If there is a debt which includes interest and there is default of debt and having a continuous course of action, the argument that the claim of money by Respondent is barred by Limitation cannot be accepted.” The NCLAT based its decision on the observation in Innoventive Industries Limited v ICICI Bank & Anr [7] that IBC is a comprehensive code which implies that it is independent of other laws. Now even though there was no provision in IBC that expressly barred the Limitation Act, the court observed that it remains open for the court to conclude so on a meaningful and comprehensive reading of the provisions. This view was further supported by M/S. Speculum Plast Pvt. Ltd. v Ptc Techno Pvt. Ltd[8]. and B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v Parag Gupta.[9] Even so, acting cautiously, the courts prescribed that the underlying utility of the doctrines like that of limitation must not be forsaken and it must be ensured that a deliberate delay does not go unpunished. Undoubtedly, the above ruling was bound to result in an increase in the number of applications and appeals. In the above background the Report of the Insolvency Law Committee of March 2018[10] came in which opined that “since the intent of the Code was not to array the Code as a fresh opportunity for creditors and claimants who did not exercise their remedy under existing laws within the prescribed limitation period, the Committee thought it fit to insert a specific section applying the Limitation Act to the Code”. The legislature finally taking note of this situation came up with Section 238A inserted vide an amendment[11] which clearly provided that the Limitation Act would apply to all the proceedings or appeals before the NCLT, NCLAT, DRT and DRAT.
Introduction When an application is filed against directors of a company under section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013(CA, 2013), the rights of the investors cannot be suppressed by barring the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016). Even in cases of multiple proceedings, if requirements […]
It is for the NCLT to decide whether the matter before it ought to be decided or not, whether any injunction operates or impedes the progress of the matter before it and the parties cannot be asked to approach this Court for this Court to hand-hold the NCLT and guide it through its proceedings.
Immunity : The Government by the IBC amendment Act 2020 has inserted a new Section 32 A in the I&B Code to provide for immunity to the Corporate Debtor (Company) from offences committed in the past (Prior to the date of the Resolution Order). It has also been clarified that the provisions of the I&B […]
In M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. K. Bharathi and Ors [W.P.No.12957 of 2021 dated August 5, 2021], the petition has been filed under the writ of Mandamus directing the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (NCLT) to dispose of the application filed by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (the Petitioner) in MA No.538 of […]
(1) This Act may be called the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2021. (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th day of April, 2021.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) signs a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with National Stock Exchange (NSE) of India for research collaboration Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Notification No. IBBI/PR/2021/17 6th August, 2021 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India signs a Memorandum of Understanding with National Stock Exchange of India for research collaboration […]
It is five years now since the enactment of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and both the Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors have taken recourse under the Code for insolvency resolution. As per IBBI data, as of March 2021, with regard to realizations under resolutions, the recovery for all classes of creditors, as compared […]
