Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Archives

Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Adjudicating Authority in Jaypee Infratech Resolution Plan (24 March 2021)

March 24, 2021 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 30, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Judges, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Adjudicating Authority in Jaypee Infratech Resolution Plan (24 March 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of powers and jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. CASE TYPE: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Case Name: Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Adjudicating Authority in Jaypee Infratech Resolution Plan (24 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Limitation Act to IBC: Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. (22 March 2021)

March 22, 2021 / Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Hemant Gupta, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, SARFAESI Act, 2002, SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 13(2), SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 13(4)

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and whether delays in filing such applications can be condoned. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Limitation Act to IBC: Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. (22 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility Under Section 29A of IBC Extends to Section 230 of Companies Act in Liquidation: Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (2021) INSC 158

March 15, 2021 / Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 230, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 35(1)(f), Judges, M R Shah, Resolution Process

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility Under Section 29A of IBC Extends to Section 230 of Companies Act in Liquidation: Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (2021) INSC 158 Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 158 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J Can promoters who

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction of NCLT in determining fees of registered valuers post CIRP set aside: Alok Kaushik vs. Mrs Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan and Others (2021) INSC 143 (15 March 2021)

March 15, 2021 / Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(13), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5)(c), Insolvency Resolution Process Costs, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of NCLT in Determining Fees of Registered Valuers Post CIRP Set Aside Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 143 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M.R. Shah, J. Can a registered valuer, appointed during a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), claim their fees if the CIRP

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction of NCLT in determining fees of registered valuers post CIRP set aside: Alok Kaushik vs. Mrs Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan and Others (2021) INSC 143 (15 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds NCLT Jurisdiction in Contractual Disputes Arising from Insolvency: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Amit Gupta & Ors. (2021) INSC 123

March 8, 2021 / Alteration of Contracts, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86, Formation of Contracts, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5), Judges, M. R. Shah, Novation of Contracts, Tariff Regulation

Supreme Court Upholds NCLT Jurisdiction in Contractual Disputes Arising from Insolvency: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Amit Gupta & Ors. (2021) INSC 123 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has jurisdiction over contractual disputes arising from insolvency proceedings and the validity of ipso facto clauses in Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). CASE

Supreme Court Upholds NCLT Jurisdiction in Contractual Disputes Arising from Insolvency: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Amit Gupta & Ors. (2021) INSC 123 Read Post »

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

March 3, 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 Moratorium Under IBC Does Not Bar Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Against Corporate Debtors (2021)

March 1, 2021 / Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dishonour of Cheques, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Under IBC Does Not Bar Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Against Corporate Debtors (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) applies to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. CASE TYPE: Insolvency and Criminal Law Case Name: P.

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Under IBC Does Not Bar Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Against Corporate Debtors (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Liquidation Order After Failed Resolution Plan Implementation in Insolvency Case (01 March 2021)

March 1, 2021 / Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 33, Judges, Liquidation, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Liquidation Order After Failed Resolution Plan Implementation LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a resolution plan can be reversed to liquidation due to the failure of the resolution applicant to implement the plan despite multiple opportunities. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Kridhan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (Now known as Krish Steel and Trading Pvt Ltd)

Supreme Court Upholds Liquidation Order After Failed Resolution Plan Implementation in Insolvency Case (01 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds IBC’s Primacy Over Winding Up: A. Navinchandra Steels vs. SREI Equipment Finance (2021)

March 1, 2021 / B.R. Gavai, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 446, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Insolvency Resolution, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Winding Up

Supreme Court Upholds IBC’s Primacy Over Winding Up: A. Navinchandra Steels vs. SREI Equipment Finance (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) overrides the Companies Act, 1956/2013 in cases of conflict, particularly when a winding-up petition has been admitted. CASE TYPE: Insolvency and Corporate Law Case Name: A. Navinchandra Steels Private

Supreme Court Upholds IBC’s Primacy Over Winding Up: A. Navinchandra Steels vs. SREI Equipment Finance (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of contempt in resolution plan disputes: Committee of Creditors of A MTEK Auto Limited vs. Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian & Ors (2021)

February 23, 2021 / Contempt Law, Contempt of Court, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Judges, M R Shah

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of contempt in resolution plan disputes: Committee of Creditors of A MTEK Auto Limited vs. Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian & Ors (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party’s conduct in a corporate insolvency resolution process, specifically attempting to withdraw from an approved resolution plan and raising a plea of force majeure, constitutes

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of contempt in resolution plan disputes: Committee of Creditors of A MTEK Auto Limited vs. Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian & Ors (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Intervention in Real Estate Project: Upendra Choudhury vs. Bulandshahar Development Authority (2021)

February 11, 2021 / Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Judges, Judicial Review, M.R. Shah, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Real Estate Law

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Intervention in Real Estate Project: Upendra Choudhury vs. Bulandshahar Development Authority (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in a real estate project under Article 32 of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Real Estate/Constitutional Law Case Name: Upendra Choudhury vs. Bulandshahar Development Authority & Ors [Judgment Date]: 11 February

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Intervention in Real Estate Project: Upendra Choudhury vs. Bulandshahar Development Authority (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)

February 9, 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 »