Case analysis of NCLAT judgment Ashmeet Singh Bhatia vs Pragati Impex India Private Limited & Anr. Advocate Pulkit RaswantAdvocate & […]
The paradigm shift instigated by the IBC proves pivotal in empowering homebuyers as financial creditors, granting them a concrete voice and active participation rights within the resolution process. This newfound standing ensures homebuyers a place at the decision-making table—a privilege previously beyond their reach. As a result, they can now play a proactive role in shaping crucial resolutions that directly impact the fate of real estate companies. This progressive change not only rectifies historical imbalances in homebuyers’ rights but also fosters a more equitable and inclusive resolution framework, aligning seamlessly with the broader objectives of the IBC to enhance efficiency and fairness in insolvency proceedings.
In essence, the introduction of project-specific resolutions in real estate insolvency cases reflects a pragmatic and tailored approach to navigating the complexities of the sector within the insolvency law framework. This amendment underscores the IBBI’s unwavering commitment to bolstering the efficiency and effectiveness of insolvency cases, particularly in sectors like real estate, characterized by unique challenges and dynamics.
The Creditor-led resolution approach is a mechanism that combines both out-of-court and in-court interaction. It stems from the recommendations of the Expert Committee constituted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India on February 1st, 2023.
The topic of this article, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), provides some ideas to make things right, through the use of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
This proviso defeats the very purpose of the Code and creates a skewed distribution of rights amongst the stakeholders of the corporate entity, as the exempted creditors enjoy the dual benefit of reaping profits as shareholders and exercising rights as a creditor. Another blatant insertion is the explanation I of Section 29A which again disregards the possibility of circularity of control of these creditors over the corporate debtor. According to the impugned explanation, a financial creditor regulated by the RBI is eligible to be a resolution applicant even if it is the shareholder of the corporate debtor and has an underlying NPA. This privilege is absent amongst other parties, including the Promoter him/herself.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has on 31st January 2024 introduced certain amendments across various regulations under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and on 1st February 2024 issued circulars clarifying applicability of certain provisions. These changes and clarifications aim to streamline processes, enhance transparency, and strengthen the framework for insolvency resolution process, insolvency professionals and entities. In this guide, we will delve into the details of each amendment and provide insights into their implications.
The authors’ explains as to why the valuation reports are not to be made public in reference to the recent judgment by NCLAT and in lieu of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017.
In this article, the authors’ discuss as to whether the investment in a Joint Venture can be considered to be a Financial Debt or Operational Debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) and 5(21) of the IBC and further delve into the cases in this regard.
In Uttara Foods & Feeds (P) Ltd v. Mona Pharmachem [2017] ibclaw.in 10 SC [2], the Supreme Court gave directions to the Government to embody a provision under the Code for allowing the withdrawal of applications after the admission of the insolvency petition, to prevent such applications from being filed before Supreme Court, resulting in the legislature enacting section 12A through IBC (Amendment) Act of 2019.
The most debated topic these days in the regime of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is whether a Resolution Professional is a Public Servant the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or not. The two High Courts of Jharkhand and Delhi gave two conflicting opinions in the same year and it is to the apex court to settle the position now.
