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 Ministry of Corporate Affairs highlighted that the IBC resolution process facilitated creditor recoveries exceeding ₹4 lakh ...
Corporate Law : The IBBI has announced contractual vacancies for Research Associates and Consultants in law and business management disciplines. T...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
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 : 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 ...
Corporate Law : The Disciplinary Committee imposed a two-year suspension after finding failures in claim verification, unauthorized financial deci...
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 inter alia empowers an Operational Creditor to initiate an application for a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor if the default is in excess of Rs. 1 Cr. Sections 8 & 9 of the Code are the governing provisions through which this process gets initiated.
The Resolution Professional, appointed by the order of the National Company Law Tribunal routinely writes to the Assessing Officer of the Corporate Debtor attaching a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal admitting the application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of the Corporate Debtor.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) mandates the Resolution Professional (RP) and the liquidator to determine if the Corporate Debtor (CD) has been subject to Avoidance transactions such as preferential transactions, fraudulent transactions, undervalued transactions, and extortionate transactions in the past, and if so, casts an obligation on the Insolvency Professional (IP) to file an application to the Adjudicating Authority (AA) for appropriate directions.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2020 today.
This Initiative aims to promote research – legal, economic and interdisciplinary – and discourse in areas relevant for the evolving insolvency and bankruptcy regime in general, and that in India. For the purpose of this Initiative, ‘researcher’ means an individual, a team of individuals or an academic Institute, who or which undertakes research under this Initiative.
The Adjudicating Authority (AA), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and High Courts, through their orders and judgements, have guided liquidators in the conduct of liquidation process. This communication presents a few significant directions and observations from these orders and judgements, which an IP may find useful. These are presented under the following six broad categories:
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2020 today.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Voluntary Liquidation Process) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2020 today.
NCLT Kolkata held that non-obstante provision of Section 32A of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is also applicable to liquidation proceedings.
Madras High Court upheld the requirement which mandates that the IP should pay a fee calculated at 0.25% of the professional fee earned for services rendered as an IP in the preceding financial year to the IBBI.
