IBC Ordinance 2020: A Way Forward or Backwards? – By Namrata Langade & Aman Kumar Saini

Save(0)

IBC Ordinance 2020: A Way Forward or Backwards?

(Written By Namrata Langade and Aman Kumar Saini)

Abstract

Companies, industries, businesses whether on a domestic or international level, play a pivotal role in the development of any country’s economy. Henceforth, it is the undeniable duty of the country to protect these entities and help them grow. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(hereinafter as “Code” or” IBC”) was created on the same lines in India. The main objective of the Code is to revive the company and keep it as a going concern instead of its liquidation. However, the present pandemic situation which has created wreaked havoc in everyone’s life, has also affected the functions of the aforementioned Code.

The Government with the intention of protecting the small and vulnerable companies from the strike of this pandemic hit market, passed the IBC Ordinance, 2020. However, the Ordinance has not been up to the mark when it comes to the substantive and sustainable growth of the financial sector at large. This article is an effort to bring out the apparent loopholes in the IBC Ordinance 2020 and point out the specific problems of the Ordinance. The article will also elucidate the implications of the Ordinance on the economy of the country. The main purpose of the article is to lay out several suggestions and course of actions which can be taken as solutions to the existing problems in the Ordinance.

 Introduction

India is a developing country and its economy is still not as opulent, when compared to the superpower countries like the USA and France. For the development and growth of the economy, it is very important to nourish the financial sector of the country. A country’s financial sector consists of companies, industries, and businesses. Thus, taking care of the needs and grievances of the companies and the industries will bring improvement in the financial sector.

The government of India passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on 1st December 2016. The objective of the IBC was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the insolvency and Bankruptcy of companies in India. The purpose of the IBC is not to liquidate the company but to resolute and revive it, so that it could be carried on as a going concern in the future. However, as a result of being a new law, several amendments have been made in the Code. Before the enactment of the IBC, the insolvency and Bankruptcy matters of the Company were dealt with according to the provisions of SICA (Sick Industrial Companies Act). However, the proceedings under SICA were very troublesome and time taking. That is why, the IBC has been designed in a time-bound manner as the adjudicating authority has to decide the case within 330 days.

Under IBC, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process can be initiated by different entities such as Company, Individual, Insolvency Professional, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The adjudicating authority consists of NCLT/NCLAT[1] and DRT [2]where the companies can initiate the CIRP before NCLT/NCLAT and individuals before DRT.

Procedure to resolve insolvency under the Code

The procedure that has been followed under the Code for resolving the Insolvency are as follows:

I. Initiation of the Insolvency Proceeding: In case when the creditor who has lent the money to the debtor fails to recover from him and a default has been occurred by the debtor, in that case the proceedings to resolve may be filled by the creditor or debtor. The Interim Resolution Professional is appointed for carrying out the same and resolution professional for managing the assets of the debtor and a moratorium period starts during which no legal action can be initiated against the debtor in any other court.

II. Decision to determine insolvency: An advisory group comprising of the creditors who loaned the amount to the account holder will be formed by the insolvency professional. The creditors board of trustees will make a choice in regards to the eventual fate of the exceptional obligation owed to them. They may decide to restore the obligation owed to them by changing the reimbursement timetable or sell (exchange) the assets of the account holder to reimburse the loan owed to them. On the off chance that a choice isn’t taken in 180 days, the indebted person’s assets go into liquidation.

III. Liquidation: The Insolvency professionals after taking all the necessary steps, take care of the liquidation process when the debtor goes into the liquidation phase. The sale of the debtor’s assets begins and is shared amongst the professionals, secure creditors and then unsecured creditors and the remaining goes to the shareholders and the government.

The Insolvency Ordinance 2020

Amid the lockdown, the President of India, Mr. Ram Nath Kovind passed the much-awaited amendment Ordinance to suspend and implement certain provisions for the time being due to the COVID-19 disruption which stopped the functioning of many markets and has made companies insolvent therefore the current amendments came into force to save these companies and help them to revive.

By analysing the current situation and the widespread of the coronavirus the Government has taken this decision to avoid any disruption in the business of various companies whose work has been stopped and put on hold. The Ordinance has been passed to suspend sections 7, 9 and 10 of the IBC Code. No one can file an application for initiation of insolvency proceedings against the companies during this time i.e. filling of the application by the lenders and by the companies against themselves has been suspended. However, it is to be noted that, it does not apply to the MSME’s. The insolvency procedure for the MSME’s as discussed by Mrs. Nirmala Sitharaman is not provided under the current Ordinance. The sections which have been suspended as well as the new sections which have been added under the Code have been explained as follows:

  • Section 7 of the IBC pertains to the initiation of the insolvency process by a financial creditor – The financial creditors along with other creditors jointly or by themselves can file an application against the corporate debtor when a default has taken place for initiation of the insolvency proceeding in front of the adjudicating authority.

The Adjudication authority shall after the receipt of the application within 14 days, ascertain whether there exists a default based in the evidence furnished. After ascertaining the authority shall accept or reject the application and communicate the same to the financial creditors and the corporate debtors within 7 days of the admission and rejection of such application.[3]

  • Section 9 covers insolvency plea by an operational creditor – supplier, employee and workman- under section 8 of the Act, you are required to give notice to the debtor demanding the due payment before filling application for insolvency in the court. The operational creditor is free to file a case before the adjudicating authority after the expiry of the 10 days of the delivery of the notice and if he has not recovered his due amount from the debtor.

The Adjudication authority shall after receiving of the application within 14 days ascertain whether there exists a default based in the evidence furnished. After ascertaining the authority shall accept or reject the application and communicate the same to the creditors and debtors respectively.[4]

  • Section 10 of the IBC states that, when a corporate debtor has committed a default, a corporate applicant thereof may file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process with the Adjudicating Authority and within 14 days the authority shall decide as to whether accept or reject the application based on its completion.[5]
  • The Proviso to Section 10 (10A) has been inserted by the latest amendment which suspended the above provisions for initiation of Insolvency proceeding against the debtor for any default in payment arising on or after 25th March 2020 to 25th September 2020 which can further be extended till one whole year. So basically, no application shall be entertained by the authority for the default occurring during this period.
  • A new Sub-Section has been added to Section 66 [section 66(3)] of the Code. Section 66 talks about the proceeding that has been initiated fraudulently and with bad intention. This provision which empowers an RP to file an application before the Adjudicating Authority to hold the director or Partner or members all things considered, liable for carrying out the business of the Corporate Debtor with an aim to swindle the creditors or for some other fake reason, presently no longer applies to defaulter against which inception of CIRP is suspended according to Section 10A.

Impact of suspension of CIRP

The recent pandemic has affected not only the Indian industries but the global industries also. It has an adverse effect on each and every sector of the world. Similarly, the financial sector of India is also suffering from the same chaos and doldrums. The government of India, intending to bring a fresh breath of air for the small struggling industries, passed the Ordinance to suspend Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the IBC, 2016[6]. The government had a bona fide intention behind the passing of Ordinance through which it desires to lessen the burden of the companies and simultaneously work for its revival.[7] The Ordinance was also passed with an aim of relaxing the overburdened insolvency tribunals and providing some time to restructure and revamp the regulations and provisions. So, that the tribunals be prepared for the coming times.[8]

Despite of the good intentions of the government, it looks like the decision has been taken in haste. It may be because of the highly built pressure on the Indian economy by different international organisations[9]. The Ordinance along with getting praises also faces many challenges. Below enlisted are some of the challenges faced by the Ordinance.

Ambiguity

The Ordinance which was promulgated by the President of India on 5th June 2020 called for a lot of confusion and ambiguity related to the filing of initiation of CIRP[10]. The Ordinance inserted section 10A in The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which reads as under:

“10A. Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 7,9 and 10, no application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor shall be filed, for any default arising on or after 25th March, 2020 for a period of six months or such further period, not exceeding one year from such date, as may be notified in this behalf:

According to the section, no application shall be filed under sections 7, 9 and 10 on or before 25th of March. However, the obligation of finding out whether the default occurred before or after 25th March is solely on the Adjudicating Authority. It remains in the ambit of the NCLT[11]/Adjudicating Authority to interpret the six months period also. It is still not clear that whether the six-month period will start from the 25th of March or from the date of filing of the application for initiation of CIRP which leaves the credit market and the financial sector in chaos and doldrums.[12]

Moreover, The Section 10A, by inserting a proviso clause, specified that if the default occurred within the specified six months (which could be extended up to 1 year), the application for initiation of CIRP can ‘never’ be filed. It has not been cleared that what would be the case if the default is a continuing one and existed even after the expiry of the specified time limit of Section 10A. Whether the application of initiation would still be barred on the account of default occurring within the six -month period or it would be allowed after the expiry of the specified time period? This question is still unanswered.[13]

Shift of burden on civil courts

The economy of the country is at all-time low in these testing times which harshly affects the financial sector also[14]. The decision for the suspension of the sections 7,9 and 10 was taken to provide relief to the corporate debtor against the claims of the creditors during the pandemic era. However, the decision just has shifted the onus from NCLT/NCLAT to other recovery legislations. The creditor can effectuate the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions (RDBFI) Act, 1993, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFEISI) Act, 2002. In addition to these, a money recovery suit can also be filed under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.[15] Furthermore, the creditors who are unsecured cannot even approach SARFEISI and are only left with the options of other civil courts such as Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).[16] The process for recovery at the aforementioned is very painstaking and time taking which will add up to the already existing perils of the creditors.

The creditors in the market will also be burdened heavily because of the suspension of initiation for CIRP. The lenders will also suffer loss and could come to the point of being insolvent if the magnitude of bad debts increases. The operational creditors provide their services and supply goods in large quantities to other organisations and companies which are mostly large-scale enterprises. Failure to recover the cost of the services and goods will only multi-fold the bad debts for the operational creditor which makes the recovery more important for the operational creditor. The suspension of section 9, which provides for the initiation of CIRP by the operational creditor, would disturb the credit market of India and would possibly leave a nasty blow to the macroeconomics of India. Similarly, the suspension of Section 7 will leave the financial creditors in tatters. Taking away the right of the financial creditors to invoke IBC will leave deficiencies in their balance sheet which would be difficult to absorb. This move will also leave a great strain on the financial and the credit market of India.[17]

Risk of wastage of defaulter’s assets

Under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, once the application for the initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor is accepted, the Adjudicating Authority, by an order, declares moratorium period which prohibits the alienation, transfer, disposing of or encumbrance of any of the assets or any beneficiary interest or any legal right by the corporate debtor.[18] However, after the suspension of initiation of CIRP, the scope of grant of moratorium period has been fully negated. During this moratorium period, the control of the management and the assets of the debtor is in the hands of the Interim Resolution Professional[19] who has the liability to maintain the company as a going concern till the execution of the proceedings.[20]

In absence of moratorium period, the corporate debtor has a free hand on its assets. So, if there arrives the situation of default by the corporate debtor, the debtor could intentionally sell of or transfer or alienate or dispose of the assets. Albeit, it has been stated through the Ordinance that the creditors cannot file an application for the initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor ever if the default occurred during the stipulated 6 months’ time period, nonetheless, there is a possibility that the corporate debtor maliciously deals with the assets of the company which would adversely affect the potential creditors and the company itself.

In addition to this, the Ordinance will also hamper the influx of capital in the economy. The fact that the creditors will not be able to recover their dues from the corporate debtors might discourage them which will affect the economy in the long run. It might create a situation in the future where the creditors may be wary of lending the goods and services to the companies which may have the tendency to default. Such hostile behaviour could block the economy which might bar the development of the financial sector of the country as a whole.[21]

Failure of purpose of ibc Code

The objective of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not to liquidate but to resolute the company. The legislation makes an effort to revive the company and maintain it as a going concern. It also guards the company, whether creditor or debtor, from fraud, undervalued transaction and other dishonest trade and transaction.[22] However, the Ordinance passed by the government defeats the whole purpose and the object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

As mentioned above, the Ordinance suspends the sections 7, 9 and 10 of IBC. Section 7 and 9 provides the opportunity to the financial and operational creditor to initiate CIRP against the corporate debtor while section 10 gives an exit gate to the corporate debtor, if things go south in the company. Suspending section 10 blocks the exit gate for the corporate debtor.[23] Section 10, in a way, proves to be locus standi for the corporate debtor to move the Adjudicating Authority against itself if the company is not able to pay creditor’s dues. The IBC aims for the restoration of conditions for all the stakeholders involved in the dispute.  But now, it may be a case, that a company is already indebted and does not have the adequate resources to maintain its status quo. The Ordinance has ceased the only hope of survival of such companies as they cannot go under Section 10 of the IBC which is not justified for such corporate debtors.[24]

Moreover, Section 66 of the IBC prevents the occurrence of any fraudulent or undervalued transaction. The said provision keeps a watch on the doings of the corporate debtor and empowers the resolution professional to inform the Adjudicating Authority by filing an application before it.[25] In this way, the Adjudicating Authority keeps a check on such activities of the corporate debtor and makes the use of their assets for the recovery of corporate debt. Through Ordinance, sub-section (3) has been added to the Section 66 which prevents the Resolution professional to file an application against the corporate debtor if any fraudulent or dishonest transaction took place within stipulated six month’s period. Such provisions, defy the very purpose of IBC and nullifies the justice provided by the established system.[26]

Continuation of debt after suspension period

As mentioned above, the Ordinance suspends the initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor if the default occurred within six months specified period which may extend to one year. However, no clarification has been issued regarding the situation where the debt is of continuing nature and extends beyond the suspension period. If the dispute occurred within the stipulated time period as notified by the Ordinance, the creditor would be prohibited from filing an application for initiation of CIRP. Howsoever, if the debt is of continuing nature and exists beyond the specified expiry period, the creditor would still not be allowed to take action against the corporate debtor as the default occurred within the six month’s period. The abovementioned mechanism denies a fair chance to the creditor for recovering their dues. The government also has not specified or provided any clarification regarding the persisting ambiguity. Henceforth, the credit market is still going around in circles due to lack of clarity from the ministry.[27]

There are other loopholes also to this Ordinance, however, the above mentioned are the basic challenges which the Ordinance faces in practicality. Due to such flaws in the Ordinance, it may be concluded that the Ordinance was passed in a hurry without even properly considering the elements and parameters of the financial world and credit market for that matter.

Suggestions

Specific Bans Instead Of Blanket Ban

The purpose behind the suspension of section 7,9 and 10 of IBC is the protection of MSME’s[28]. However, putting a blanket ban on the initiation of insolvency defeats the whole purpose. Several MSME’s are also suppliers who supply their goods and services and not being able to recover the cost of the specified goods and services will increase the amount of bad debt in their balance sheet which threatens the very existence of such suppliers in the market.

Instead of putting a blanket ban on the initiation of CIRP, the government could have applied specific bans to moderate the effect of pandemic on small and medium businesses. The government vide notification dated 24.03.2020 increased the threshold for initiation of CIRP from 1 lakh to 1 crore.[29]The said notification already acts as a specific ban that protects the small and the medium business from the claims of creditors. The transaction of small and medium businesses does not touch the mark of crore rupees in most of the cases. As according to the aforementioned contention, the MSME’s are already safe from the hefty claims of the creditors. Hence, no need for blanket ban was required.

Postponement Of Filing

The Ordinance made it clear that if the default occurred after the 25th march 2020 for the period of six months, there shall be no filing of application by the creditor for initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor. This provision is bane more than a boon for the financial market, as the filing of application for such default shall never be done. This will also encourage those defaulters who deliberately default on the payment of the creditors. The MSME’s companies are not performing well because of the pandemic hit market, which is the reason for suspending of initiation of CIRP against corporate debtors. However, not providing the opportunity of filing the application against the default before the Adjudicating Authority, will affect the creditors adversely.

Instead of suspending the filing of application against the default of the corporate debtor, the Adjudicating Authority might have allowed the filing of the application, however, initiation of CIRP could have been postponed till the restoration of normalcy in the market. This practice will ensure the protection of corporate debtor against the claims of the creditors in the pandemic hit market and will ensure the creditors that action would be taken for aiding the recovery of the corporate debt from the corporate debtor. This course of action will also prohibit the corporate debtor from dishonestly dealing with the company’s assets and will ultimately ensure the recovery of debt to the creditors.

Upgradation Of E-Infrastructure

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the world to a halt. This contagious pandemic is preventing the people from stepping outside. Apparently, the lower courts and tribunals has been also shut down because of which the grievances of people are not getting addressed properly. The NCLT/NCLAT has also been not functioning at its full capacity. This has radically impacted the suppliers in the market as they are not allowed to either recover their dues from the corporate debtors or file an application against the default.

However, technological advancement in the functioning of Adjudicating Authorities may solve half the tyranny of the creditors. The Apex court has aptly adopted the technology for the proceedings of urgent matters. The implementation of E-infrastructure in the NCLT/NCLAT will ensure the unhindered functioning of the Adjudicating Authorities as the filing could be done virtually. By adopting such technological savvy ways, the CIRP against the defaulter can be initiated and the creditors would be able to recover their dues. Technological advancement in the procedure of Adjudicating Authorities will also ensure hassle-free future proceedings, if any such unwarranted and unwanted situation arises in the future.

Revival Of Section 10 Of IBC

As discussed above, the Ordinance suspended sections 7, 9 and 10 of IBC. Section 10 in particular deals with the filing of application for initiation of CIRP by the corporate debtor against itself.[30] This step is taken by the Corporate Debtor in a situation where the corporate debtor comes to know that the company is either on the verge of getting bankrupt or is bankrupt and is not in the position of repaying its debt. Section 10, in such matters acts as an exit gate for corporate debtors who are in the position of carrying on the transactions of their company. By the suspension of Section 10, the government has restricted the exit gate of such corporate debtors.

In the present time, when the market is badly affected by the pandemic, there are several companies who are not able to generate enough profit to keep themselves as going concern. They are also not able to pay their dues because of considerably low earnings. Now, according to Section 10A, these companies have to wait for a period of 6 months to file insolvency application against themselves, so that the Adjudicating Authority can help them to revive their status in the market. However, in these six months, there may be a case, that these companies come closer to liquidation and the option of reviving such companies get extinct. Henceforth, the suspension of Section 10 of IBC shall be lifted for providing proper relief to the companies who are already burdened by their dues and do not have the capacity to repay their dues.

Initiation Of Moratorium

Moratorium period has been explained under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. During the moratorium period, the management and the control of corporate debtor on the assets of the company are taken away. By doing this, it is ensured that the corporate debtor shall not be in the position to compromise the assets of the company which could adversely affect the interest of the creditors. However, due to the suspension of Section 7, 9 and 10, the creditors are not able to file an application for the initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor which means there would be no triggering of the moratorium period.

In the case of non-existence of moratorium period, the corporate debtor would be having control over the management and the assets of their company. Now, if the company defaults the payment to its creditors, then the creditors would not be in the position of filing any application against the corporate debtor due to Section 10A which has been introduced through the Ordinance. Now during the six-month time period when the filing of the application against the corporate debtor has been suspended, the corporate debtor might dishonestly, with the intention to make a loss to its creditors, transfer, alienate, dispose of, sell or damage the assets or property of the company.

For protecting the interest of the suppliers or the creditors, the government should have allowed the filing of insolvency application and initiated the moratorium period, so that the corporate debtor cannot compromise the assets of the company. After declaring the moratorium period, the government also has the option of halting the proceedings and continue it again afterward when the situation comes back to normalcy. Anyways, in the moratorium period also, the management of the company is handed over to the resolution professional who also has the obligation of keeping the company intact and prevent it from getting liquidated. In this way, the protection of the assets of the corporate debtor’s company will be ensured, the working of the corporate debtor’s company would not be impeded and also the interest of the creditors would be defended.

 

Conclusion

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is still at its developing stage as every new day brings a new amendment to the law. However, there are still various loopholes that are yet to be addressed. The government while passing the IBC Ordinance 2020, intended to provide a sigh of relief to the small businesses and industries in this pandemic stricken economy. The government also wanted to rejuvenate the already overburdened authorities, so that they can use this time to refresh and reframe the provisions for better functioning in the future. However, the decision taken by the government was not totally flaw proof. Various scholars, advocates and other luminaries pointed out various flaws in the Ordinance which brings us to the explanation that the decision taken was not well planned and was taken in haste. The idea of suspension of provisions of IBC is just a side burner that focuses only on one aspect of the credit market and financial world. If we look at the bigger picture, the creditors, personal guarantors and other entities involved in the IBC provisions are at huge loss due to the passing of Ordinance, 2020. However, we cannot hold liable the government totally and absolutely. At this unprecedented time, no one ever stipulated that the market would be hit by such an epic disaster. The corporate ministry had to take several decisions which if not improve the situation, then at least impede it from getting worse.

The present farrago due to the pandemic has taught us many things. It brought our attention to those aspects of the financial world which were untouched till now. It posed such questions in front of us which were unasked. However, it has also prepared us for future hurdles. The upcoming years will pose comparatively difficult questions for us but we would be ready with an answer at that time. We just have to accept our flaws due to which the economy got affected and have to try our best to improve it. We have to build a defence mechanism for our adjudicating authorities and its functionaries so that it remains working, no matter what the situations are. We also have to make sure that the provisions and amendments which would be brought in the upcoming days shall be beneficial for all the parties involved. A country’s economy is a very vital nerve for its survival. The rejuvenation of the economy is very important for a country to prosper and this is an obligation on all of us.

 

Reference

[1] National Company Law Tribunal/National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

[2] Debt Recovery tribunal

[3] Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

[4] Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

[5] Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

[6] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

[7] Aishwarya Anand, “IBC Suspension- More a Problem than solution?”,  (Law Street India, 29 May 2020), http://www.lawstreetindia.com/experts/column?sid=394#:~:text=The%20intention%20of%20the%20government,slowdown%20is%20evident%20in%20India., accessed 22 June 2020

[8] Anurag Das, “In its approach to the IBC, the government got it right/analysis”, Hindustan times (20 May 2020), https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/in-its-approach-to-the-ibc-the-government-got-it-right/story-8ZRSos6pYBRHCtEBFBkRWO.html, accessed 22June 2020

[9] World Bank, Moody’s Corporation, etc.

[10] Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

[11] National Company Law Tribunal

[12] G P Madaan & Aditya Madaan, “ IBC Amendment Ordinance 2020: Ambiguities leave more questions than answers”, (live law, 6 June 2020) https://www.livelaw.in/columns/ibc-amendment-Ordinance-2020-ambiguities-leave-more-questions-than-answers-157916#, accessed 23 June 2020

[13] Ibid 6

[14] Jayanti Ghosh, “Indian economy was rolling down a hill. With Covid-19, it’s falling off a cliff”, (Quartz India, 2 April 2020), https://qz.com/india/1830822/coronavirus-may-push-indias-struggling-economy-off-the-cliff/, accessed 24 June 2020

[15] Ibid 2

[16] “Suspending IBC to six months to hurt bondholders more”, The Economic Times (Mumbai, 8 June 2020), https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-economic-times/20200608/281814286094394, accessed 24 June 2020

[17] Shreya Prakash, “A case against suspending IBC amidst Covid-19 crisis”, The Hindu (New Delhi, 8 Apr 2020), https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/a-case-against-suspending-ibc-amidst-covid-19-crisis/article31287927.ece#, accessed 24 June 2020

[18] Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

[19] Section 17 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

[20] Section 20(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016

[21] Ibid 2

[22] “Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016”, (Clear Tax, 5 June 2020), https://cleartax.in/s/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-Code-2016, accessed 25 June 2020

[23] Hemant Kothari, “Suspension of IBC: It’s a half-baked solution to ease financial stress”, (Money Control, 19 May 2020)https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/economy/policy/suspension-of-ibc-its-a-half-baked-solution-to-ease-financial-stress-5285481.html, accessed 25 June 2020  

[24] Aakash Batra and Renuka Mishra, “Analysis of IBC (amendment) Ordinance 2020- a step towards protecting the economy or creating arbitrariness?”, (IBC Law, 8 June 2020), https://ibclaw.in/analysis-of-ibc-amendment-Ordinance-2020-a-step-towards-protecting-the-economy-or-creating-arbitrariness-by-renuka-mishra-aakash-batra/, accessed 25 June 2020

[25] Section 66 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

[26] Ibid 20

[27] Ibid 7

[28] Macro, Small and Medium Enterprises

[29] Ibid 2

[30] Section 10 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

 

 

Disclaimer

The Opinions expressed in this article are that of the author(s).The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of http://www.ibclaw.in.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors (which shall, for these purposes, include guests) in their personal capacity and do not, in any way or manner, reflect the views of the organizations that the contributors are presently associated with, or that have previously employed or retained the contributors. Postings on this blog are for informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to constitute legal or investment advice. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog between contributors and other persons shall not create any attorney-client relationship.