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: Case Analysis
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.
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.
Sinking Ship: IBC vis-à-vis Admiralty Act – By Adv. Prasad Warkar
In this article, the author draws a parallel between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the Admiralty Act).
Delhi High Court on superseding effect of IBC v. PMLA: An Analysis – By Shraddha Tiwari and and Tejaswini Kaushal
In the case of Rajiv Chakraborty Resolution Professional of EIEL v. Directorate of Enforcement, 49 bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor were provisionally attached by the ED after the commencement of the CIRP. The IBC vs. PMLA conundrum has persisted for decades now in the Indian legislative diaspora, with several court decisions, judicial opinions and academic research facilitating the harmonised application of the two laws. It is indubitable that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, acts enjoy distinct importance under the Indian business laws, serving as a critical exception to the latter.
Settling the Dust of avoidance application: In light of Venus Recruiter v. Tata Steel – By Rituraj Singh Parmar and Devyani Mishra
In light of this ruling of Delhi High Court, the article attempts to analyse the implications of the judgement. First section of this post will first delve into the background of the case; thereafter author will explore and discuss the different aspects of the judgement. The article will conclude by analysing the case within the broader context of IBC vis-à-vis avoidance application and the possible reasons of lower rate of adjudication of such applications.
Scope of Review vis-à-vis Order under Section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – By Adv. Prashant Tripathi
Once an application for the appointment of an arbitrator is made and an order is passed on such application, the question that arises for consideration is whether an aggrieved party can seek a review of the said order passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. This article attempts to find a definite answer to this question in light of the statutory provisions and various judicial precedents.
‘Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law’ – An analysis of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs. Amit Gupta – Authored by Adv. Bharath Nair Raghu
Great cases, like hard cases, make bad lawAn analysis of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs. Amit Gupta Authored byAdv. Bharath Nair Raghu The title of this article is drawn from a statement in the case of Northern Securities Co.…
Vidarbha Industries Power and Rainbow Papers judgments of Supreme Court may be nullified in incoming amendments under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)
There is total 16 judgments (reported in IBC Laws till 18.01.2023) were passed by various forms such NCLAT/NCLT referring Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. (2022) ibclaw.in 91 SC. Similarly, total 8 judgments (reported in IBC Laws till 18.01.2023) were passed by various forms such NCLAT/NCLT referring State Tax Officer Vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd. (2022) ibclaw.in 107 SC. On January 18, 2022, MCA has invited public comments on various amendments in IBC. In these proposed amendments, it has also proposed that: a. Section 7 of IBC may be amended to clarify that while considering an application for initiation of the CIRP by the financial creditors, the AA is only required to be satisfied about the occurrence of a default and fulfilment of procedural requirements for this specific purpose (and nothing more). Where a default is established, it is mandatory for the AA to admit the application and initiate the CIRP. b. All debts owed to Central Government and the State Government, irrespective of whether they are secured creditors pursuant to a security interest created by a mere operation of statute, shall be treated equally with other unsecured creditors. These all judgments which referred Vidarbha Industries Power and Rainbow Papers judgment can be access using sub-subject in IBC Laws’s Case Law Portal.
