The article aims at the study of Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka vs. Tourism Finance Corporation India Ltd (2023) ibclaw.in 30 SC case with respect to the judicial precedents regarding the disputed concurrence of the Code with other Acts and regulations.
Category: Articles
Shareholder Activism and the case of Vikram Bakshi vs McDonalds – By Simant Tyagi
To conclude, it could be said that the ruling by the tribunal, which is significant in protecting the rights of minority owners, increased the rights of those shareholders who are the targets of oppression and poor management inside the corporation by the other shareholders. It could also be inferred that a self-sufficient code for the regulation of the administration of the business is formed by Sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 to guarantee that the interests of the company or any of its shareholders are not harmed.
Revisiting the Discretionary Admittance of Applications under Section 7 of the IBC – By Arnav Doshi and Vidhi Basrani
In view of the controversial Vidarbha Industries decision, it is argued that the discretionary nature of Section 7 of the Code must be revisited. The legislative intent congealed in the initiation of CIRP by a financial debtor coupled with the jurisprudential wisdom prior to Vidarbha Industries postulates a case for the mandatory admittance of a Section 7 application. Further, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs inviting public comments on various amendments/changes to be considered to the Code is an opportunity that presents itself to reconsider the position laid in Vidarbha Industries and provide beneficial insulation to financial creditors.
Should an Unstamped or Insufficiently Stamped Arbitration Agreement be Enforceable in India? – Dalima Pushkarna
Recently, this issue came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the author in this piece tries to understand the fate of such arbitration agreements and analyze the current view of the Supreme court.
Summary of Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) Resolution Plan Judgement
Summary of findings of the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the NCLT Delhi, approving the Resolution Plan submitted by Suraksha Realty Limited for the Resolution of Jaypee Infratech Limited.
Insolvency & Liquidation of Financial Service Providers: IBC’s Special Provisions – Adv. Vishawjeet Singh and Adv. Yash Gupta
The introduction of the FSP Rules is a critical and timely first step in resolving financial firms in India. These Rules provide a unique interplay between the processes outlined in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the principles that are distinct but complementary to financial firms. The regulator, the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the adjudicating authority each have a specific role to play in this process. The FSP Rules will bring much-needed relief to the stakeholders involved in the financial sector, as they now have a clear path to implement resolution plans. However, it is essential to note that the FSP Rules are an interim measure, and comprehensive legislation in this regard will be crucial. As the resolution of FSPs is undertaken through these Rules, it is crucial to monitor the implementation of this framework closely. The FSP Rules provide a necessary first step in addressing the challenges faced by the financial sector, but a comprehensive legislative framework is needed to provide a lasting solution. Therefore, the FSP Rules are a critical first step in resolving financial firms in India, providing a clear path for stakeholders to implement resolution plans. However, ongoing monitoring and the development of comprehensive legislation are needed to address the challenges faced by the financial sector fully.
Bad Bank kicks off with Jaypee for systemic resolution of large complex assets – By Kajal Bhatia, Legal Analyst at India Debt Resolution Company Ltd.
The Hon'ble NCLT Principal Bench, Delhi approved the Resolution Plan on 07.03.2023. Jaypee Infratech Limited becomes the first acquisition of India’s revolutionary Bad Bank, signalling a promising future for distressed assets. The Bad Bank, which is a twin structure comprising of National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL) and India Debt Resolution Company Limited (IDRCL), has been established to facilitate the effective resolution of large and complex non-performing assets (NPAs), in line with the announcement made by the Hon'ble Finance Minister in the Union Budget of February 2021.
Bar on Personal Guarantors as Resolution Applicants under IBC: Understanding the Implications of Invoking Guarantee – By Adv. Yash Gupta and Adv. Nitish Gajraj
The IB Code has undergone several amendments since its inception, and one such amendment that has been introduced is the insertion of Section 29A, which has garnered considerable attention and criticism alike. Further, a specific provision was included in Sub-Section (h) of Section 29A to address the eligibility of Guarantors to Corporate Debtor (CD). This Sub-Section aims to disqualify any "person" who has provided a personal guarantee to a creditor from becoming a resolution applicant once the creditor invokes their personal guarantee. This article aims to discuss Section 29A of the IBC concerning the ineligibility of personal guarantors as a resolution applicant.
Withdrawal of Claim by a member of Committee of Creditor during CIRP – By Ashutosh Pandey and Kunal Joshi
In an interesting question whether a creditor who wishes to opt out of the CIRP process withdraw his claim?
Modification of claims post approval of Resolution Plan: can NCLT exercise equity-based jurisdiction? – By Adv. Srivatsava Reddy Beerapalli
The Code as it exists in our country has consciously limited the jurisdiction of the Adjudicatory Authority in approving resolutions plans under Section 31 and the legislature has not conferred independent equity-based jurisdiction on the NCLT. Primarily, this helps reduce delays and increase time bound resolution ensuring value maximization. On the contrary, the remarks made by the NCLAT in Paramvir and continued litigation for equitable treatment in distribution of proceeds under the resolution plan to certain stakeholders leaves room for discussion on the treatment of all stakeholders under approved resolution plans in the prevailing status quo.
