A banker’s Certificate is not mandatory to initiate CIRP under Section 9, NCLAT

A banker’s certificate is not mandatorily required for an operational creditor to begin Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

NCLAT Chennai Bench: Tribunal Dismisses Review Application Seeking Recall of Order

In a recent decision, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, and Shri Jatindranath Swain, delivered a significant verdict regarding the jurisdiction of tribunals in recalling orders. The case in question, titled Adv. (CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar v Hari S. Hari Karthik & Ors., … Continue reading “NCLAT Chennai Bench: Tribunal Dismisses Review Application Seeking Recall of Order”

Treatment and Priority of EPFO dues under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”)

The provisions Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 specifically provides for treatment for all sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund. Further, in the present scenario there is much debate on the admissibility of the claim of EPFO under Sections 7Q and 14B for which … Continue reading “Treatment and Priority of EPFO dues under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”)”

Deciphering the Enigma of Interim Moratorium under IBC

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 brings in the concept of Interim Moratorium, which offers protection to individuals during the insolvency process.

The attachment of assets by the ED under the PMLA Act is not permissible once a company has entered insolvency

Asset attachment by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is critical in combating money laundering and criminal activities.

CIRP proceedings could be initiated against both corporate co-borrowers, but the recovery of the same amount could not be made from both parties: SC

CIRP proceedings under section 7 can be initiated against corporate debtors who are co-borrowers but there can be no double recovery of the same amount from both.

NIL payment to OC’s if Liquidation Value is NIL, doesn’t contravene the provisions of S. 30(2)(b) of IBC, 2016: NCLAT, New Delhi

the Operational Creditors are only entitled for minimum of the Liquidation Value and NIL payment to Operational Creditors in case the Liquidation Value is NIL, does not contravene the provisions of Section 30(2)(b) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Appeals and Limitations under Section 17 of the Limitations Act

Since a specific limitation period for filing such an appeal is clearly mentioned, Section 17 of the Limitation Act could not be applied here.

Wages/salaries of only those employees who worked during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process are to be included in CIRP costs, rules SC

The claims filed/to be submitted by the workers of the appellant must be decided upon and taken into consideration by the Liquidator even if RP has not submitted the claims towards the wages/salaries as part of CIRP costs.

No bar to withdraw admitted CIRP application before constitution of the committee of creditors: Supreme Court

The withdrawal of an application for CIRP by the applicant would not prevent any other financial creditor from taking recourse to a proceeding under IBC.

Analysis of the Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process and its advantages as compared to the CIRP

The Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) mechanism have helped the MSMEs to a great extent in order to revive their operations as a going concern.

An alien concept to the IBC regime is reverse CIRP

Despite the fact that such relief should not have existed, the NCLAT instead attempted an “experiment” to adopt the strange idea of Reverse CIRP, which has no precedent in the Code.

Reverse CIRP and its Modus Operandi- An Extraneous concept to IBC Regime

The constitution of COC for one project instead of all is against the regular practice of CIRP. In the past two years, the NCLAT has passed similar orders in various cases and called them Reverse CIRP.

Personal Guarantor under section 95 is exempted from section 10A of IBC, 2016

Section 10A proceedings are not applicable against the Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.