Article 137 is having a wider scope than Article 1 of the Limitation Act and is not applicable to the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Article 1 is also not applicable to the petition filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The enforcement proceedings for the foreign award (under S. 47-48) are the last and final stage where the debtor can resist the award from becoming binding/ enforceable for grounds listed under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act.
This judgement is a step in the right direction because it recognizes the authority of a non-petitioning creditor to request for a transfer of the winding up proceedings. It assures that A creditor is not deprived of their right just because they didn’t participate in the initial winding up procedure against corporate debtor.
Since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. “The right to sue”, therefore, accrues when a default occurs.
Gujarat High Court dismissed Essar Steel’s petition and refused to grant any of the reliefs sought by Essar Steel. The Gujarat High Court moved quickly and efficiently, and the order was issued within 10 working days of Essar Steel’s filing of the case.
NCLT clarified many controversial legal issues surrounding telecom spectrum, including whether it could be subjected to IBC proceedings whether the bankrupt telcos could sell spectrum rights allotted to them as part of the IBC resolution process.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the bunch of employee’s union against the impugned judgment of the Rajasthan High Court whereby, the High Court refused to transfer the winding up proceedings before the NCLT, and further set aside an order passed by the NCLT initiating the CIRP application by virtue of section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor.
These two judgements would be of great importance because they have paved a way for the transfer of post-notice winding up petitions pending before the different High Courts.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs had earlier limited initiation of fresh insolvency proceedings for a period of 6 months which now stands extended to 1 year.
The NCLAT held that CIRP against Real Estate Company shall be limited to Project concerned and will not affect other projects of the developers.
The pendency of actions under the SARFAESI Act or actions under the RDDBFI Act, 1993 does not create an obstruction for applying Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, especially given Section 238 of IBC.
A growing number of Builders, Developers, Promoters and stakeholders in the Real Estate Industry are backing RERA to be the first applicable redressal mechanism to homebuyers.
This proactiveness has been further accelerated by the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Pioneer case.
No suit or legal proceeding against the company can be commenced or continued against the company after the passing of the winding up order except with the permission of the Tribunal.
Moratorium Period under section 14 of the code shall not apply upon such proceedings under the prevention of money laundering act.