For India’s distressed debt, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) was a game-changing change. It developed a tool to revitalize struggling distressed debtors, heralding a shift from previous resolution and recovery methods.

A respondent has violated the provisions of section 18 of the RERA and hence the complainant is entitled to seek interest for the delayed possession under section 18 of the RERA.

The code has helped the creditors to recover their amount from defunct companies and bring them back to their actual position. IBC was introduced so as to reduce India’s long-standing problem of NPAs.

CIRP is a process to determine the capability of repayment of the defaulted corporate. For this purpose, IRPs are appointed. They evaluate the assets and liabilities to determine the capability of repayment.

A change in the composition of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the Corporate Debtor will affect its previous decision and the same will be binding on the newly included members of CoC.

Tribunal cannot go into the merits of a decree pronounced by a foreign court or tribunal as it is not an apt forum to decide the propriety of a foreign decree.

In Banking Industry, the Borrower is not in a position to negotiate the Terms of the Loan Agreement, especially in cases of Home Loans, hence there is inequality of Bargaining power among Home Buyers.

Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has emerged as one of the key aspects in determining the Eligibility of the Potential Resolution Applicants in a tedious attempt to save the company in question under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The COVID-19 crisis has caused distress and failure in the MSME sector. The insolvency law since its enactment in 2016 has been amended several times in order to protect the interest of MSMEs as well as the future and growth of the Country.

There is no such provision to implead creditors other than the ones which triggered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

VIPL sought for a stay on the proceedings before the NCLT on the pretext of pendency of proceeding before the Supreme Court and resultantly, VIPL was unable to realize a substantial sum of Rs. 1730 crores which would enable the Appellant to clear the debt towards Axis Bank.

The Corporate Debtor went into CIRP vide the Adjudicating Authority (AA) order dated 20.09.2019 and Mr. Hemant Mehta (Appellant) got appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The minimum threshold limit mentioned under section 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can include both principal and interest amount. The invoices/bills raised by the Operational Creditor clearly mentioned that the interest will be charged @18% after the due date of the bill.

In the present case, debt pertaining to unpaid license fee was fully covered within the meaning of ‘operation debt’ under Section 5(21), and the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in holding that the debt claimed by the Operational Creditor is not an ‘operational debt’

Hon’ble Supreme court declared that the provisions of IBC (Code) to be interpreted liberally to expand the objective of the Statute.