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 ...
Suspension of Section 7, 9 and 10 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code: The IBC (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 Lately, on third day of June, 2020 Union Cabinet cleared the proposal for suspension of Section 7, 9 and 10 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) for the period of six months starting from 25th of March, 2020. Thus, […]
Analysis of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 i.e. IBC (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 Reasons of Amendment: 1. The entire ecosystem for implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is in Place, 2. The Provisions relating to corporate insolvency resolution process and liquidation process for corporate person under the code are in operation, 3. Covid-19 […]
The term ‘pre-pack sale’ has been defined by the Association of Business Recovery Professionals in the United Kingdom as, ‘an arrangement under which the sale of all or part of a company’s business or assets is negotiated with a purchaser prior to the appointment of an Administrator, and the Administrator affects the sale immediately on, or shortly after, his Appointment’.
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) New Delhi, the 5th June, 2020/Jyaishtha 15, 1942 (Saka) THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2020 NO. 9 OF 2020 Promulgated by the President in the Seventy-first Year of the Republic of India. An Ordinance further to amend the insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. WHEREAS the entire […]
Insolvency Professionals to act as Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs), Liquidators, Resolution Professionals (RPs) and Bankruptcy Trustees (Recommendation) Guidelines, 2020 2nd June, 2020 Corporate Insolvency The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Board) is required under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) to recommend name of an Insolvency Professional (IP) for appointment as Interim Resolution […]
As per IBC, once an entity defaults certain threshold amount, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(CIRP) gets triggered and the management of such entity (Corporate Debtor) and its assets vest with an interim resolution professional (IRP) or resolution professional (RP). It continues to run the business and operations of the said entity as a going concern till […]
Mandatory procedures under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process such as interim financing for insolvent assets, time-bound resolution process, and a creditor in control model may not be easily met under the present COVID-19-induced conditions. Another concern can be an over-burdened NCLT besides everything. These could be the probable reasons to suspend the Code.
In the year 2016, the Indian Parliament completely overhauled the then existing framework governing insolvency and bankruptcy in India. The novel Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) sets out a comprehensive and consolidated set of provisions, which seeks to provide a new trajectory to the sick industry regime in India. With a dire need for […]
Buyer Cannot Be An Operational Creditor of Seller On Non-Payment of GST To Statutory Authorities. This article deals with the situation where, the supply of the goods or service has been made by the seller and in lieu of which the GST has been charged by such seller from the buyer of the goods or […]
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any power of recall or review being available to the Tribunal, the present case at hand does not fall within the confines of Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 nor Rule 11 of the NCALT Rules, 2016. As recourse, the Applicant should have approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of the Code.
