Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Archives

Supreme Court clarifies definition of financial creditor under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix ARC vs. Ketulbhai Patel (2021)

February 3, 2021 / Ashok Bhushan, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 126, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 172, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(7), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(8), Judges, M.R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Creditor Status in Pledge Agreements: Phoenix ARC vs. Ketulbhai Patel (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party holding a pledge of shares as security qualifies as a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ketulbhai Ramubhai Patel [Judgment Date]: […]

Supreme Court clarifies definition of financial creditor under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix ARC vs. Ketulbhai Patel (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “related party” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix Arc vs. Spade Financial (2021)

February 1, 2021 / Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 21(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(24), Judges, Related Party

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Party” Definition under IBC: Phoenix Arc vs. Spade Financial (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Definition of “related party” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 1 February 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “related party” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix Arc vs. Spade Financial (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021)

January 21, 2021 / Acknowledgment of Liability, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, 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, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is barred by limitation when the default occurred more than three years before the application was filed. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/s. Reliance

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: A Detailed Analysis of Manish Kumar vs. Union of India (2021)

January 19, 2021 / Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 32A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 19 Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha, and K.M. Joseph, JJ. Can a group of homebuyers be required to meet a threshold before initiating insolvency proceedings against a builder? The Supreme Court of India recently

Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: A Detailed Analysis of Manish Kumar vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies transfer of winding-up proceedings to NCLT under IBC: Action Ispat vs. Shyam Metalics (2020)

December 15, 2020 / Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 273, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 434, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Krishna Murari, R.F. Nariman, Winding Up

Supreme Court clarifies transfer of winding-up proceedings to NCLT under IBC: Action Ispat vs. Shyam Metalics (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Transfer of winding-up proceedings to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shyam Metalics and Energy

Supreme Court clarifies transfer of winding-up proceedings to NCLT under IBC: Action Ispat vs. Shyam Metalics (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the treatment of claims in Information Memorandum under IBC: NTPC Ltd. vs. Rajiv Chakraborty (2020)

November 16, 2020 / A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy, Information Memorandum, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Judges, Operational Creditors, Resolution Professional

NTPC Ltd. vs. Rajiv Chakraborty: Supreme Court Clarifies Treatment of Claims in Information Memorandum LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a claim pending adjudication can be classified as an ‘Operational Creditor’ claim in the Information Memorandum under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: NTPC Ltd. (Simhadri Project) vs. Rajiv Chakraborty Judgment Date: 16

Supreme Court clarifies the treatment of claims in Information Memorandum under IBC: NTPC Ltd. vs. Rajiv Chakraborty (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Petitions on Personal Guarantors Under IBC: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vs. Lalit Kumar Jain & Ors. (29 October 2020)

October 29, 2020 / Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 139A, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Hemant Gupta, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 1(3), Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Personal Guarantors

Supreme Court Transfers Petitions on Personal Guarantors Under IBC: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vs. Lalit Kumar Jain & Ors. (2020) Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2020 Citation: Not Available Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. Can the Supreme Court transfer writ petitions from various High Courts to itself

Supreme Court Transfers Petitions on Personal Guarantors Under IBC: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vs. Lalit Kumar Jain & Ors. (29 October 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds NCLT Order in Insolvency Case: SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. vs. Rajeev Anand & Ors. (2020)

September 8, 2020 / Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds NCLT Order in Insolvency Case: SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. vs. Rajeev Anand & Ors. (2020) Date of the Judgment: September 08, 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 647 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Navin Sinha, J., Indira Banerjee, J. Can an admission made by a corporate debtor in a previous, withdrawn proceeding be used as

Supreme Court Upholds NCLT Order in Insolvency Case: SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. vs. Rajeev Anand & Ors. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles Limitation for IBC Section 7 Applications in Radha Exports Case (2020)

August 28, 2020 / Arun Mishra, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(8), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137

Supreme Court Settles Limitation for IBC Section 7 Applications in Radha Exports Case (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) can be admitted if the claim is barred by limitation. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/S RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED. vs. K.P .

Supreme Court settles Limitation for IBC Section 7 Applications in Radha Exports Case (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Consideration of Depositors’ Claims in DHFL Insolvency: Vinay Kumar Mittal vs. DHFL (2020)

January 31, 2020 / Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Deepak Gupta, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 21(6A)(b), Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, National Housing Bank Act, 1987, National Housing Bank Act, 1987 with Section 36, National Housing Bank Act, 1987 with Section 36(A), Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45(q)(a)

Supreme Court Directs Consideration of Depositors’ Claims in DHFL Insolvency: Vinay Kumar Mittal vs. DHFL (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the claims of fixed deposit holders should be prioritized over other creditors during the insolvency resolution process of a financial service provider. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Vinay Kumar Mittal & Ors. vs. Dewan Housing

Supreme Court Directs Consideration of Depositors’ Claims in DHFL Insolvency: Vinay Kumar Mittal vs. DHFL (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Resolution Plan, Emphasizes Commercial Wisdom of Creditors: Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh (22 January 2020)

January 22, 2020 / Aniruddha Bose, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 12-A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 30, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Resolution Plan, Emphasizes Commercial Wisdom of Creditors: Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) must match the liquidation value of the corporate debtor and whether a successful resolution applicant can withdraw from the process after the plan’s approval.

Supreme Court Upholds Resolution Plan, Emphasizes Commercial Wisdom of Creditors: Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh (22 January 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies High Court’s jurisdiction over NCLT orders in insolvency cases: Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (03 December 2019)

December 3, 2019 / Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 with Section 8A(6), Rohinton Fali Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court clarifies High Court’s jurisdiction over NCLT orders in insolvency cases: Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can interfere with an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), when there is a statutory remedy

Supreme Court clarifies High Court’s jurisdiction over NCLT orders in insolvency cases: Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (03 December 2019) Read Post »