Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024)

/ Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Scope of Judicial Interference

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of interference by a referral court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Goqii Technologies Private Limited vs. Sokrati Technologies Private Limited Judgment Date: 7th November […]

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of interference by a referral court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law. Case Name: Goqii Technologies Private Limited vs. Sokrati Technologies Private Limited Judgment Date:

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation and Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Cases: Sabarmati Gas vs. Shah Alloys (2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Insolvency Resolution Process, Judges, Limitation, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Sick Company, Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985, Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 with Section 22

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation and Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Cases: Sabarmati Gas vs. Shah Alloys (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the period of suspension of legal proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) can be excluded when calculating the limitation period for applications under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and whether

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation and Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Cases: Sabarmati Gas vs. Shah Alloys (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Tech Sharp Engineers vs. Sanghvi Movers (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Limitation Period

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Tech Sharp Engineers vs. Sanghvi Movers (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: The key legal issue is determining the limitation period for filing an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and whether the pendency of winding-up proceedings before a High Court can extend this limitation. CASE

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Tech Sharp Engineers vs. Sanghvi Movers (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “pre-existing dispute” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: M/S S.S. Engineers vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2022)

/ CIRP, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Pre-Existing Dispute Under IBC: M/S S.S. Engineers vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a pre-existing dispute between an operational creditor and a corporate debtor bars the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). CASE TYPE: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law Case Name: M/S S.S. Engineers vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “pre-existing dispute” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: M/S S.S. Engineers vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act in IBC cases: SVG Fashions vs. Ritu Goyal (29 March 2022)

/ Hemant Gupta, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court on Limitation under IBC: SVG Fashions vs. Ritu Goyal (2022) Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 234 Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. (authored the judgment) Can a letter acknowledging a debt, along with dishonored cheques, revive a time-barred claim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)? The

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act in IBC cases: SVG Fashions vs. Ritu Goyal (29 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Pre-Existing Dispute, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a pre-existing dispute, for the purposes of Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, includes a situation where an appeal against an arbitral award is dismissed in default but subsequently restored. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Dispute” Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for Operational Debts: Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2017)

/ Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(6), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Judges, Operational Debt, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Can a mere allegation of breach of contract constitute a “dispute” to halt insolvency proceedings? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning operational debts under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This judgment clarifies what constitutes a valid dispute that can prevent the initiation of insolvency proceedings by operational

Supreme Court Clarifies “Dispute” Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for Operational Debts: Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top