Cross-Border Insolvency with reference to the ‘Centre of Main Interest’ – By Archit Bhadani

Cross-Border Insolvency with reference to the ‘Centre of Main Interest’ - Authored by: Archit BhadaniGraduate Insolvency Programme at the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs The introduction of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in India is being considered as the biggest…

The law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them – Article authored by Adv. Pratik Sarkar

The law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them -Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317 -Article authored by Adv. Pratik Sarkar It is…

Standard of pre-existing dispute under IBC in Rajratan Babulal Agarwal vs Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. – By Adv Nipun Singhvi and Adv. Vishal J Dave

Warranty comes to rescue of Corporate Debtor : ‘Sale of Goods Act (SOGA)’  Vs IBC Authored by:Adv Nipun Singhvi,Adv. Vishal J Dave The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) verdict in Rajratan Babulal Agarwal vs Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Civil…

Treatment of Auto Loan charge by Loan Financers under the Insolvency Code – By Adv. Gaurav Mitra and Adv. Lavanya Pathak

Pending consideration by the Supreme Court of India, the decision in the case of Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Sree Balaji Printopack Pvt. Ltd. (2020) ibclaw.in 302 NCLAT will have a colossal effect on the auto loan industry of the country. The matter, currently being heard by a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud, shall be determinative of the legal position regarding the admissibility of a ‘claim’ before the liquidator, based on a hypothecation ‘charge’ over a vehicle where the charge is registered with the Regional Transport Office under VAHAN, in accordance with Section 51 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. While the NCLAT has answered the said question in the negative, stating that registration with the Registrar of Companies under Section 77(3) of the Companies Act is necessary, the authors are of the view that the same is neither a legal requirement nor does it bode harmoniously with the scheme of applicable laws.

A Critical Analysis of NCLAT’s Recent Decision on Provident Fund Dues- By Chidambaram Ramesh

This article explains and evaluates the recent judgement of the NCLAT in Mr B.Parameshwara Udpa, RP of M/s Easun Reyrolle Ltd. vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO.[1] Initially, the article describes the case’s facts.  Second, the article explains and analyses the NCLAT’s ruling, including how the decision contradicts the language and spirit of the Insolvency legislation and Supreme Court decisions.  The article finishes with some views on the repercussions and negative impacts of the ruling on workers’ social security rights.

A Rainbow- Fading the Colours of IBC – By Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Nipun Gautam

The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in State Tax Officer (1) v Rainbow Papers Limited, (2022) ibclaw.in 107 SC observed that if the resolution plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State government or a legal authority, altogether, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the Resolution plan. It goes without saying that the said decision has sent concerns down the insolvency vertical where the stakeholders have been mulling over steps to be taken for complying with the said decision. Summarily, the CIRP against the corporate debtor initiated on 12.09.2017, the government belatedly filed their claim. The RP in the instant case communicated to the government department that their claim had been waived off. Both the lower foras dismissed the challenge of the government department against the resolution plan.

Sales Tax now a “Secured Creditor”: Liquidation prioritised over Resolution? – By Adv. Nipun Singhvi and Adv. Mayur Jugtawat

Hon’ble Supreme Court verdict in State Tax Officer (1) v. Rainbow Papers Limited (2022) ibclaw.in 107 SC has declared State Tax (Gujarat VAT department) as secured creditor within the ambit of IBC recognising under Section 3(30) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IB Code). Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority.  Further, another important issue discussed is relating to claims by the Statutory authority is that claims should be considered in plan as per books of account and also prefers liquidation in case the interest of State is not taken care in the resolution plan. This article attempts to analyse the judgment keeping in mind objectives of the Code.

Legal validity of Resolution Plan which ignores/waive off Dues of ‘Government authorities’ – By Muhammed Ijaz V

In the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons, an issue is generally discussed as to the status of statutory dues payable by the Corporate Person – whether a resolution plan which ignores/waive off the statutory demands payable to state governments, or legal authorities, is liable to be rejected ?. In light of numerous erstwhile judicial interpretations which supports and recognizes the statutory provision relating to position of statutory debts and dues payable to central and state government and local authorities under IBC , it is well settled that Operational debt includes statutory debts and dues owing to the Central, state, as well as any local authorities. As a result, these creditors are also to be considered as operational creditors and their claim cannot be disregarded in any resolution plan under the IBC.