Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9

Supreme Court Clarifies Operational Creditor Definition under IBC: Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 4, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(21), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Memorandum of Association, Operational Creditor, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Operational Creditor Definition under IBC: Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party that receives goods or services can be considered an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/s Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited vs. […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Operational Creditor Definition under IBC: Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (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 Upholds Withdrawal of CIRP, Prioritizing Corporate Revival: K.N. Rajakumar vs. V. Nagarajan (2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 271(1)(a), 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, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of CIRP, Prioritizing Corporate Revival: K.N. Rajakumar vs. V. Nagarajan (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Committee of Creditors (CoC) should be reconstituted based on updated claims before allowing the withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: K.N. Rajakumar vs. V. Nagarajan & Ors. Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of CIRP, Prioritizing Corporate Revival: K.N. Rajakumar vs. V. Nagarajan (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Claim: N. Subramanian vs. M/S Aruna Hotels Ltd. (2021)

/ Acknowledgment of Debt, B.R. Gavai, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Hrishikesh Roy, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Period, Operational Creditor, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Claim: N. Subramanian vs. M/S Aruna Hotels Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a claim for arrears of salary is time-barred under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) when there are acknowledgements of liability. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: N. Subramanian vs. M/S Aruna Hotels Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Claim: N. Subramanian vs. M/S Aruna Hotels Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in cases of default during COVID-19: Ramesh Kymal vs. Siemens Gamesa (9 February 2021)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 10A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, MR Shah

Supreme Court clarifies Section 10A of IBC: Ramesh Kymal vs. Siemens Gamesa (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) applies to applications filed before the provision came into force, for defaults occurring after March 25, 2020. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Ramesh Kymal vs. M/s Siemens Gamesa

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in cases of default during COVID-19: Ramesh Kymal vs. Siemens Gamesa (9 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows insolvency proceedings under IBC without Tea Act consent: Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. A.J. Agrochem (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, M. R. Shah, Tea Act, 1953, Tea Act, 1953 with Section 16E, Tea Act, 1953 with Section 16G

Supreme Court allows insolvency proceedings under IBC without Tea Act consent: Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. A.J. Agrochem (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prior consent of the Central Government is required under Section 16G(1)(c) of the Tea Act, 1953, before initiating proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case

Supreme Court allows insolvency proceedings under IBC without Tea Act consent: Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. A.J. Agrochem (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of the Limitation Act to applications under Sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: B.K. Educational Services Private Limited vs. Parag Gupta and Associates (2018) INSC 908 (11 October 2018)

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 408, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 433, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 238A, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Act Applicability to IBC Proceedings Date of the Judgment: 11 October 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 908 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J. and Navin Sinha, J. Can a creditor initiate insolvency proceedings for a debt that is time-barred under the Limitation Act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, clarifying the

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of the Limitation Act to applications under Sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: B.K. Educational Services Private Limited vs. Parag Gupta and Associates (2018) INSC 908 (11 October 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the time limit for rectifying defects in insolvency applications: M/S. Surendra Trading Company vs. M/S. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited and Others (2017) INSC 758 (19 September 2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 252, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Insolvency Resolution Process, Judges, SICA Proceedings, Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985

Can an application for corporate insolvency be rejected if defects are not rectified within seven days? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question, clarifying the nature of the seven-day time limit for rectifying defects in applications filed by operational creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This judgment has significant implications for the

Supreme Court clarifies the time limit for rectifying defects in insolvency applications: M/S. Surendra Trading Company vs. M/S. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited and Others (2017) INSC 758 (19 September 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top