Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7

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 permits withdrawal of CIRP proceedings in favor of Homebuyers: Amit Katyal vs. Meera Ahuja (03 March 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 12A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court permits withdrawal of CIRP proceedings in favor of Homebuyers: Amit Katyal vs. Meera Ahuja (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can permit the withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings initiated by homebuyers, considering a settlement between the parties and the larger interest of the homebuyers. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case

Supreme Court permits withdrawal of CIRP proceedings in favor of Homebuyers: Amit Katyal vs. Meera Ahuja (03 March 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 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: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022)

/ Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Insolvency Resolution Process, 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: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 concerning the eligibility of a resolution applicant who has provided a guarantee to a creditor. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Supreme Court clarifies ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Commercial Wisdom of CoC in Insolvency Case: Ngaitlang Dhar vs. Panna Pragati Infrastructure (2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 61(3), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds Commercial Wisdom of CoC in Insolvency Case: Ngaitlang Dhar vs. Panna Pragati Infrastructure (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was right in interfering with the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) regarding the approval of a resolution plan. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Ngaitlang Dhar

Supreme Court Upholds Commercial Wisdom of CoC in Insolvency Case: Ngaitlang Dhar vs. Panna Pragati Infrastructure (2021) 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 »

Supreme Court allows delayed claim in Insolvency Case: GPR Power Solutions vs. Supriyo Chaudhuri (29 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges

Supreme Court Allows Delayed Claim in Insolvency Case: GPR Power Solutions vs. Supriyo Chaudhuri (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the delay in filing a claim by a creditor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be condoned, considering the Supreme Court’s orders on extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case

Supreme Court allows delayed claim in Insolvency Case: GPR Power Solutions vs. Supriyo Chaudhuri (29 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Admission of Insolvency Application Based on Acknowledgment of Debt: Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth vs. Chandra Prakash Jain (2021)

/ B. R. Gavai, B. V. Nagarathna, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Financial Creditor, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 19

Supreme Court Upholds Admission of Insolvency Application Based on Acknowledgment of Debt: Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth vs. Chandra Prakash Jain (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is maintainable when filed by a power of attorney holder and whether such application is barred by limitation. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Upholds Admission of Insolvency Application Based on Acknowledgment of Debt: Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth vs. Chandra Prakash Jain (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the effect of acknowledgment of debt. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the role of balance sheets in acknowledging debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC): Asset Reconstruction Company vs. Bishal Jaiswal (2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 129, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Financial Statements, Hrishikesh Roy, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of Balance Sheets in Acknowledging Debt under IBC Date of the Judgment: April 15, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 218 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a company’s balance sheet serve as valid proof of debt acknowledgment, thereby extending the limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings?

Supreme Court clarifies the role of balance sheets in acknowledging debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC): Asset Reconstruction Company vs. Bishal Jaiswal (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Limitation Act to IBC: Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. (22 March 2021)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Hemant Gupta, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, SARFAESI Act, 2002, SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 13(2), SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 13(4)

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and whether delays in filing such applications can be condoned. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Limitation Act to IBC: Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. (22 March 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top