O.P. Jindal Global University

Unveiling the Hidden Hands: Demystifying Beneficial Owners and analysing implications of the 2023 amendment – Adv. Shivangi Singh

Recent amendments to the Companies Act (2023) prioritize corporate transparency and responsible conduct by addressing the issue of undisclosed beneficial ownership. Through mandatory disclosure forms, designated responsible persons, and stringent non-compliance penalties, the revised framework aims to combat financial opacity and potential malpractices. While maintaining India’s attractiveness for foreign investments, stricter regulations for FDI, particularly from sensitive jurisdictions, ensure enhanced due diligence. On the whole, these adjustments foster a more robust business environment, prioritizing genuine ownership and deterring concealed control structures.

Unveiling the Hidden Hands: Demystifying Beneficial Owners and analysing implications of the 2023 amendment – Adv. Shivangi Singh Read Post »

Case Analysis of “B. K. Educational Services Private Limited Versus Parag Gupta and Associates” – By Ankit Thakur

The legal problem addressed in the case is regarding the applicability of the Limitation Act in initiating application under the IBC to which the Court firmly held that it is and when default occurs, attracts ‘the right to sue’ and that section 5 of the Limitation Act could be called upon to condone any delay to file application under IBC. The Court further clarified that the applicability is from the inception of the IBC.

The decision by the Supreme Court did give clarity with regards the position of section 238A read with section 7 and section 9 of IBC and the rationale behind paves way out for those finding disparity in the provisions of IBC. Yet, the NCLT might be overwhelmed with time barred applications under IBC after this judgment. There is surely a further need for more clarification on this.

Case Analysis of “B. K. Educational Services Private Limited Versus Parag Gupta and Associates” – By Ankit Thakur Read Post »

Case Analysis on Adani Power Limited Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. – By Shrikar Venkat Ventrapragada

In the case of Adani Power Limited vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company[10], the Supreme Court appears to have resolved the ambiguity that arose in Fourth Dimensions Solutions Ltd. v Ricoh India Ltd & Ors.(supra) by ruling that the observations and directions recorded by the NCLAT are clear and unambiguous. Specifically, they state that the approved RP is binding on all parties and cannot be the subject of arbitration or any other proceedings. The respondents’ claim has been classified by the IRP as a “contingent liability,” and they are free to proceed with the arbitration process in order to have the claim decided. The supreme court further declared that the appellant’s rights and obligations under the RP shall be unaffected even in the event that the respondent’s claim is successful. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the application.

Relying on the fresh slate principle, a successful resolution applicant may now refuse any further payment for contingent claims that settle following the approval of a resolution plan by NCLT. Potential resolution applicants will now have ultimate say over the whole settlement proposed to be made for the acquisition of a company going through insolvency procedures, which will provide them a great deal of comfort.

Case Analysis on Adani Power Limited Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. – By Shrikar Venkat Ventrapragada Read Post »

Case Analysis of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. – By Shivangi Singh

This ruling has indeed been of great importance as it strives to effectively serve the main objectives of IBC, which are to revive the CD and keep it operational. It truly enables the SRA to truly begin anew. However, creditors must ensure that their claims are part of an approved resolution plan by conducting thorough due diligence to check if any proceedings have been already initiated against the CD under the Code. Additionally, creditors must submit their claims in a timely manner to the insolvency resolution professional appointed for the corporate debtor, regardless of whether proceedings have been initiated under any other law by the creditor against the corporate debtor for such claims.

Case Analysis of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. – By Shivangi Singh Read Post »

Operational Debt or Financial Debt? A Discussion on the Position of Arbitral Awards Under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – By Vibhor Goel

Once the arbitral proceedings conclude, an arbitral award will be passed awarding either one of the parties a monetary compensation. In a situation where the other party fails to pay such amount, a question arises as to what the nature of this amount awarded under an arbitral award be? Will it be categorized as a financial debt or an operational debt?

Operational Debt or Financial Debt? A Discussion on the Position of Arbitral Awards Under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – By Vibhor Goel Read Post »

Case Brief – Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Ltd. & Anr. – By Preetika Bharti

In a recent judgement dated 10th August 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has once again, upheld the wisdom of Committee of Creditors (“COC”) and dismissed the appeal filed by the operational creditors (“OC”) against approval of resolution plan (“Plan”). A brief of the judgement is provided hereinbelow.

Case Brief – Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Ltd. & Anr. – By Preetika Bharti Read Post »

Attempt of Corporate and Insolvency Laws to Protect Corporate Debtor from Its own Management – By Niraj Gandhi

A submission of scheme under section 230 has a lot of similarity to a submission of resolution plan. In both cases, the objective of the submission is the revival of company and it becomes of a binding nature of approved by the committee and the tribunal. Now, if certain restrictions are imposed via Section 29A on submission of resolution plan, the same intention is bound to be carried forward to the company’s act. Another important point to be noted here is that only when a company is undergoing liquidation in terms of the provisions of IBC by proposing a scheme under the 2013 act, Section 29A will come into play to bar ineligible resolution applicants from submitting a proposal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of NCLAT and affirmed that applicants who are ineligible to submit a resolution plan under 29A would also be ineligible under S. 230 with respect to proposing a scheme of arrangement.

Attempt of Corporate and Insolvency Laws to Protect Corporate Debtor from Its own Management – By Niraj Gandhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top