Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings: State Bank of India vs. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (2022) INSC 189

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, Surya Kant

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings: State Bank of India vs. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (2022) INSC 189 Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 189 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Surya Kant, J. Can a one-time settlement (OTS) offer or […]

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings: State Bank of India vs. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (2022) INSC 189 Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Appeal, Emphasizes Fair Hearing in Insolvency Case: Jord Engineers vs. Valia and Co. (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Operational Creditor

Supreme Court Restores Appeal, Emphasizes Fair Hearing in Insolvency Case: Jord Engineers vs. Valia and Co. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to a party can be sustained. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Jord Engineers India Ltd. vs.

Supreme Court Restores Appeal, Emphasizes Fair Hearing in Insolvency Case: Jord Engineers vs. Valia and Co. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Fair Opportunity in Insolvency Resolution: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (25 February 2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 62, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Fair Opportunity in Insolvency Resolution: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in allowing both resolution applicants to modify their plans to ensure a level playing field. CASE TYPE: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law Case Name: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma Judgment Date: 25

Supreme Court Upholds Fair Opportunity in Insolvency Resolution: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (25 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Debt, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without giving the corporate debtor an opportunity to respond, in an application under Section 9 of the

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Debt, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without giving the corporate debtor an opportunity to respond, and whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Creditor, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without providing an opportunity for response to the corporate debtor. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/S Wizman Impex Pvt.

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 18, 2022 The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, addressed a critical question regarding the eligibility of resolution applicants under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Specifically, the court examined whether

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC for Guarantors: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC for Guarantors: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 regarding the eligibility of a personal guarantor to submit a resolution plan. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC for Guarantors: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the process for determining Resolution Professional fees in Corporate Insolvency: Devarajan Raman vs. Bank of India Limited (05 January 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5)(c), Insolvency Resolution Process Cost, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Resolution Professional Fee Determination in Insolvency Cases Date of the Judgment: 05 January 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No 3160 of 2020 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A S Bopanna, J. Can an adjudicating authority arbitrarily reduce the fees of a Resolution Professional (RP) without proper justification? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court clarifies the process for determining Resolution Professional fees in Corporate Insolvency: Devarajan Raman vs. Bank of India Limited (05 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the process for payment of Resolution Professional fees in Corporate Insolvency Cases: Devarajan Raman vs. Bank of India Limited (2022) INSC 142 (05 January 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5)(c), Judges, Resolution Professional Fees

Supreme Court clarifies the process for payment of Resolution Professional fees in Corporate Insolvency Cases: Devarajan Raman vs. Bank of India Limited (2022) INSC 142 (05 January 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the proper procedure for determining and disbursing the fees and costs of a Resolution Professional (RP) in a Corporate

Supreme Court clarifies the process for payment of Resolution Professional fees in Corporate Insolvency Cases: Devarajan Raman vs. Bank of India Limited (2022) INSC 142 (05 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the process for payment of Resolution Professional Fees in cases where CIRP is set aside: Devarajan Raman vs. Bank of India Limited (2022) INSC 1

/ A.S. Bopanna, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5)(c), Judges, Resolution Professional Fees

Supreme Court clarifies the process for payment of Resolution Professional Fees in cases where CIRP is set aside: Devarajan Raman vs. Bank of India Limited (2022) INSC 1 Date of the Judgment: January 5, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A.S. Bopanna, J. Can a Resolution Professional (RP) be

Supreme Court clarifies the process for payment of Resolution Professional Fees in cases where CIRP is set aside: Devarajan Raman vs. Bank of India Limited (2022) INSC 1 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Adjudicating Authority’s Role in Insolvency Petitions: E S Krishnamurthy vs. Bharath Hi Tech Builders (2021)

/ A S Bopanna, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 3(12), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Adjudicating Authority’s Role in Insolvency Petitions: E S Krishnamurthy vs. Bharath Hi Tech Builders (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue is whether the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) can dismiss a Section 7 petition for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) solely because the corporate

Supreme Court clarifies Adjudicating Authority’s Role in Insolvency Petitions: E S Krishnamurthy vs. Bharath Hi Tech Builders (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top