Corporate Law : Learn about IBBI's new rule for generating a unique Valuation Report Identification Number (VRIN) for valuations under the Insolve...
CA, CS, CMA : Highlights from August 5-11, 2024: Income Tax exemptions, GST updates, SEBI guidelines, and RBI monetary policy changes....
Corporate Law : Explore how the NCLT's inherent power to recall orders under the IBC ensures justice by addressing procedural errors. Learn about ...
Corporate Law : Explore the pros and cons of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Understand its impact on insolvency proceedings in India....
CA, CS, CMA : Discover IBBI Circular No. IBBI/LIQ/74/2024 dated 28-06-2024 on voluntary liquidation processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptc...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Corporate Law : New guidelines for the Committee of Creditors by IBBI focus on enhancing decision-making, transparency, and efficiency in insolven...
Corporate Law : Learn about the new guidelines by IBBI for Insolvency Professionals acting as IRPs, Liquidators, RPs, and BTs. Details on eligibil...
Corporate Law : IBBI updates the progress report format for liquidation processes, seeking comments by July 12, 2024. Learn about the new requirem...
Corporate Law : IBBI invites comments on proposed amendments to CIRP regulations, focusing on valuation processes, MSME treatment, voting protocol...
Corporate Law : NCLT Amravati held that application filed by SBI (creditor) u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of ...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that reassessment action under section 148 of the Income Tax Act post approval of the resolution plan unsust...
Corporate Law : NCLT Mumbai rules in favor of Piramal Capital, allowing Insolvency Professional Entities to be appointed as Resolution Professiona...
Corporate Law : NCLT Mumbai held that as per section 32A of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Corporate Debtor shall not be held liable fo...
Corporate Law : NCLAT Delhi held that electricity supply by NPCL, being in nature of supply of essential goods, was necessary to be continued duri...
Corporate Law : IBBI amends Inspection and Investigation Regulations, extending the response period to show-cause notices to 60 days from the due ...
Corporate Law : IBBI updates Information Utilities Regulations with new timelines and verification procedures starting October 2024, improving def...
Corporate Law : IBBI's ruled that mere association with a promoter does not automatically disqualify a Resolution Applicant under Section 29A unle...
Corporate Law : The IBBI Disciplinary Committee disposes of SCN against Insolvency Professional Brijendra Kumar Mishra, advising re-examination af...
Corporate Law : IBBI disciplinary order finds Mr. Vijendra Kumar Jain guilty of negligence and failure in handling claims under CIRP, with implica...
During liquidation process, the liquidator makes a public announcement inviting filing of claims and verifies them. He takes into his custody or control of all the assets of the corporate debtor (CD) and forms a liquidation estate
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivkumar Reddy1, an appeal against the judgment of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT), wherein the NCLAT rejected the corporate insolvency application on the ground of limitation, settled important issues pertaining to Section 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 […]
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 […]
Department issued orders to the assessees for not discharging service tax liability in relation to ‘take away/parcel services’ till June 2017. The assessee aggrieved from the impugned order of the Department preferred the writ petition before the Hon’ble Court.
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.
INTRODUCTION For any capitalist economy to survive, bankruptcy laws form an integral part of that economy. From every business be it a partnership, sole proprietorship or any limited liability company, bankruptcy laws help in the reorganization of the assorted assets of these corporations as well as the orderly dissolution of these assets. Therefore, from the […]
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 […]
