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)

/ 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 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 Procedure for CIRP Withdrawal: GLAS Trust Company LLC vs. BYJU Raveendran & Ors. (23 October 2024)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 12A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 with Rule 11

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for CIRP Withdrawal: GLAS Trust Company LLC vs. BYJU Raveendran & Ors. (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the procedure for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) applications after admission but before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: GLAS Trust Company LLC vs.

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for CIRP Withdrawal: GLAS Trust Company LLC vs. BYJU Raveendran & Ors. (23 October 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 »

Pre-Existing Dispute Under IBC: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Corporate Debtor in Rajratan Babulal Agarwal vs. Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ Hrishikesh Roy, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Pre-Existing Dispute, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 13, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 59

Supreme Court on Pre-Existing Dispute under IBC: Rajratan Babulal Agarwal vs. Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a ‘pre-existing dispute’ existed to reject an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law Case Name: Rajratan Babulal Agarwal vs. Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. &

Pre-Existing Dispute Under IBC: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Corporate Debtor in Rajratan Babulal Agarwal vs. Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 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 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 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 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 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 »

Scroll to Top