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 ...
In a memorable and consequential judgement, in the matter of Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF)&Or’s vs M/s AMR Infrastructure Ltd (CA No. 811(PB/2018 in IB-02(pb)/2017, it has been upheld that the voting threshold in the IBC are merely directory in nature and that preference can be taken to decision taken by the largest percentage in the Committee of Creditors in case of a deadlock. For a homebuyer or commercial property buyer, both of them involved in this case, the judge made an eventful judgement which approved the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional as Resolution Professional and that agenda items 4, 6 to 9 were also deemed to have been approved by majority of Committee of Creditors
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, experts say, emanated from the noble hearts of the rulers who decided to help those who gave their life savings/assumption of unlimited liabilities based on the beautiful pictures and glib lectures of mostly young kids on flats, villas or dream like palaces but on a razor thin margin of reality. I feel sad but also remorseful that these financial creditors as the courts would start calling them, just got jinxed and most of them did not even file claims as per laid down procedures in above code
There was ongoing debate with regards to interpretation of Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that whether moratorium will apply to personal Guarantors as various High Court and NCLAT gave conflicting decision. The Article analysed the same lacuna and states how the law is now settled by the Apex Court Pronouncement.
A dissenting financial creditor means a fmancial creditor who voted against the resolution plan or abstained from voting for the resolution plan, approved by the CoC. In this background, an issue has been raised whether a financial creditor
Germany introduced the Bankruptcy Act, 1877 ranking itself as one of the topmost industrial nations which allowed its industries to opt for bankruptcy, if needed. After a long period, in 1999, with twenty years of discussions, hearings and meetings, Insolvency Statute replaced the relevant acts in erstwhile West Germany as well as the East Germany. Again, due to industrial distress, the above act was reformed with an update in 2012, 2014 and 2017. The full act can be referred at the following web site:
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 has brought relief to the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises by relaxing the provisions of section 29A in their favour. It is one of the most significant amendments under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and has a wide impact on the whole insolvency resolution regime.
In this Article, Author discuss the definition of Dispute under the Code in the light of landmark judgement of Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations P. Ltd V. Kirusa Software P. Ltd.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Board) issued a show-cause notice dated 23rd March, 2018 (SCN) to Mr. Kapil Goel, 205, Naurang House, 21 KG Marg, New Delhi – 110001. Mr. Goel is a Professional Member of the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI and an Insolvency Professional registered with the Board with registration number IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00625/2017-2018/11081.
t is directed that an IPE shall inform the Board: – (a) within seven days from the date when an insolvency professional ceases to be its director or partner or joins as its partner or director; and (b) forthwith and in any case, not later than 7th September, 2018, if it has failed to inform any cessation or joining of an insolvency professional as its partner or director in the past.
On 23rd August 2018, the IBBI issued a 19 page order signed by the WT Director and also by the Chairman of IBBI. It was dedicated to ONE man, Mukesh Mohan, who had contravened provisions of sections 17, 18(f), 20, 23, 25(2)(h) and (j), 29A, 43, 45, 50, 66, 196 (1)(g), 206, 208 (2)(a) and (e) of the Insolvency Code. Not just that, he had also contravened regulation 7(2)(a)(h) and (i) of the IBBI IP Regulations. Furthermore, he was credited with contravention of clauses 1,2,3,5,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,24 and 25 of the Code of Conduct appended to IBBI IP Regulations. Lastly he was also found to have contravened Regulations 6(3), 13, 27(a) and 36 of the IBBI IRP for CP Regulations. While most of us are unaware or don’t care about the numerals mentioned above, but it is important to understand the breadth of the achievements of man and the detailed extent to which the Board goes about in military precision to clean up the dirt created by one of its own. The success of the most ambitious reform is so critically dependent on the fulcrum of the Institution of the Insolvency Professional that it needs to be constantly guarded and protected from the few bad apples within. Some of the statements/observations made in the 19 page report are subtle, while some are sharp, gives the nation an assurance that the men in charge mean business.
