The present article provides the background and foreground to the captioned issue of treatment of personal guarantors under the Code, to establish how the Mahendra Jajodia order is another sequel to the series of removal of hurdles from the insolvency process of personal guarantors to corporate debtors, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Category: Article
Knocking the doors of Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal once again after withdrawal of Insolvency Petition – By Achint Gupta
This paper talks about the legal proposition enunciated by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal on an aspect of restoration of insolvency petition when no liberty of court was sought at the time of withdrawal of petition.
Facets of Operational Debt under IBC – By Divesh Sawhney & Sanyam Aggarwal
Operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is generally referred to, or has generally been judicially construed as, payment due from the Corporate Debtor for the receipt of goods or services from the supplier/Operational Creditor. But instances galore where the Corporate Debtor was the supplier of goods or services and received some money to that effect, and then failed to honor its commitments i.e., provide the goods or services to the buyer. Can this second episode be categorized as operational debt under the Code?
Residuary Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal: A Study of Recent Developments – By N. Bharat Sudarshan and Reema Jain
It must be considered that the legislative intent envisages that all state of affairs should be such that the Corporate Debtor can be revived. This idea percolates through Section 60(5)(a) of The Code as it unequivocally declares that NCLT shall have jurisdiction to entertain “Any application” against the Corporate Debtor without any specification regarding the dispute or application arising from the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.
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.
The Quandary of Retrospective Effect of Section 29A of IBC through the Lens of Wig Associates Judgment – By Hiteshi Wadhwani
This article will highlight on the judgment of Martin S.K. Golla v. Wig Associates Pvt. Ltd. dated 4-6-2021, reported at (2021) ibclaw.in 257 NCLAT, which extensively discusses the nature of Section 29A of the code and has held that the ineligibility which has been mentioned in Section 29A shall be attached when the resolution plan is submitted by the applicant.
Liability of Personal Guarantors under IBC: Clearing the Smokescreen – By Mr. Vikas Dutta & Ms. Mansi Sachdeva
This article attempts to clear the smokescreen by decoding authority case law on the liability of personal guarantors under IBC. In the end, the Authors have shared take away from the authority case law concerning the personal guarantee.
