Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Supreme Court Orders Completion of Amrapali Group Projects, Protecting Homebuyers: Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 12(1)(c), Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 53, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 11(4), Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 4(2)(l)(D), Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 8, Uday Umesh Lalit

Amrapali Group Homebuyers Win Relief: Supreme Court Orders Project Completion LEGAL ISSUE: Protection of homebuyers’ rights and completion of stalled real estate projects. CASE TYPE: Real Estate/Consumer Law. Case Name: Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 23 July 2019 Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2019 Citation: Not Available […]

Supreme Court Orders Completion of Amrapali Group Projects, Protecting Homebuyers: Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Trade Unions to File Insolvency Petitions on Behalf of Workers: JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. (2019)

/ Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 3(23), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(21), Judges, Operational Creditor, R.F. Nariman, Trade Union Registration, Trade Unions Act, 1926, Trade Unions Act, 1926 with Section 13, Trade Unions Act, 1926 with Section 15, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Allows Trade Unions to File Insolvency Petitions on Behalf of Workers (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trade union can be considered an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. Judgment Date: April 30,

Supreme Court Allows Trade Unions to File Insolvency Petitions on Behalf of Workers: JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice: NCLAT Order Set Aside in Insolvency Case (8 March 2019)

/ Audi Alteram Partem, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, Natural Justice, NCLAT Rules, 2016

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice: NCLAT Order Set Aside in Insolvency Case LEGAL ISSUE: Violation of natural justice principles, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law, specifically under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Case Name: Jai Balaji Industries Limited vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice: NCLAT Order Set Aside in Insolvency Case (8 March 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Reliance Companies in Contempt for Breaching Undertakings: Ericsson vs. State Bank of India (20 February 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with Section 12, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency Code with Section 9, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Holds Reliance Companies in Contempt for Breaching Undertakings: Ericsson vs. State Bank of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Reliance Companies were in contempt of court for breaching undertakings given to the Supreme Court regarding payment to Ericsson. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court Case Name: Reliance Communication Limited & Ors. vs. State Bank of

Supreme Court Holds Reliance Companies in Contempt for Breaching Undertakings: Ericsson vs. State Bank of India (20 February 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds 75% Voting Share for Resolution Plans under IBC: K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank (2019)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 30(4), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds 75% Voting Share for Resolution Plans under IBC: K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) requires approval by at least 75% of the voting share of financial creditors. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: K. Sashidhar vs. Indian

Supreme Court Upholds 75% Voting Share for Resolution Plans under IBC: K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Suspended Directors in Insolvency Proceedings: Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Standard Chartered Bank (2019)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 24, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Suspended Directors in Insolvency Proceedings: Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Standard Chartered Bank (2019) Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 78 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can former directors of a company undergoing insolvency proceedings access crucial resolution plans? The Supreme Court of India recently

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Suspended Directors in Insolvency Proceedings: Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Standard Chartered Bank (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Key Provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (25 January 2019)

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 412, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Fundamental Rights, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 12A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Key Provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2019 Citation: (2019) ibclaw.in 03 SC Judges: Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha Is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) a constitutionally valid law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a

Supreme Court Upholds Key Provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (25 January 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the interplay between Winding-Up Petitions and IBC Proceedings: Forech India Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (22 January 2019)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 433, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 434, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Navin Sinha, Rohinton F. Nariman, Winding-up

Supreme Court Clarifies the interplay between Winding-Up Petitions and IBC Proceedings: Forech India Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The interplay between winding-up petitions filed under the Companies Act and insolvency proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Forech India Ltd. vs.

Supreme Court clarifies the interplay between Winding-Up Petitions and IBC Proceedings: Forech India Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (22 January 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 Upholds Rejection of Substitution as Secured Creditor: Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Official Liquidator (2018)

/ Actionable Claim, Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 with Rule 9, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Secured Creditor, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 130

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Substitution as Secured Creditor: Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Official Liquidator (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an assignee of debt can be substituted as a secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) if it is not a

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Substitution as Secured Creditor: Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Official Liquidator (2018) 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 »

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