From Piramal Enterprises Case to State Bank of India case: Finality still required – By Arundathi K and Deepak Thakur

Ever since its enactment, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is no stranger to the need for judicial intervention to settle issues that are instrumental in achieving the objectives of the Code and providing an effective legal remedy to those who invoke it. In one such circumstance, The NCLAT was called upon to settle some of the highly crucial issues in the cases of Vishnu Kumar Agarwal v. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. [2019] ibclaw.in 16 NCLAT and State bank of India v. Athena Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (2020) ibclaw.in 344 NCLAT.

Sham Transactions do not Qualify as Financial Debt under Section 5(8) – By Mohammed Asrar Ahmed

Sham Transactions do not Qualify as Financial Debt under Section 5(8) Earth Gracia Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Earth Infrastructure Ltd Case Citation: (2021) ibclaw.in 254 NCLAT - By Mohammed Asrar Ahmed,Penultimate Year Law Student studying from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad…

Overview of the Position of MSMEs as Corporate Debtors and as Operational Creditors under the IBC – By Mr. Rajrishi Ramaswamy

In an Order dated 20th April, 2021 in K. Sateesh Babu Rajesh v. Mr. George Varkey (2021) ibclaw.in 61 NCLT, the Kochi Bench of the NCLT disposed of an application made by a promoter to an MSME, after asking him to file an Expression of Interest in his own capacity and to then register the Corporate Debtor as an MSME through the newly initiated “Udhyam” process. Through this Order, the NCLT has very succinctly reiterated the position of MSMEs under the Indian insolvency law. In light of the same, it would be pertinent to analyze the relevant legislative provisions and key judicial pronouncements which deal with MSMEs not just as Corporate Debtors but also as Operational Creditors.

Dishonour of Cheque: The Duality of IBC and Negotibale Instruments Act, 1881 – By Ms. Reema Jain

In the opinion of the author, Section 138 of The Act shall be decriminalized as the fine payable under the penalty is adequate to ensure public interest as put forward by courts. Despite, the clear ruling of Supreme Court, the reasoning of Madras High Court with respect to deliberate omission  cannot be sidelined. The drafting mistake with respect to “payment” which was corrected by amendment in 2019 of the Code to “repayment” can be taken as an example to add “Prosecutions” to Section 14 if the legislative intent sits right.