Putting Resolution Professionals under the spotlight: The latest IBC Amendments
The resolution professional (RP), appointed under the Code, is at the heart of these endeavors and has the mandate to complete this process in a time-bound manner.
The resolution professional (RP), appointed under the Code, is at the heart of these endeavors and has the mandate to complete this process in a time-bound manner.
Specifically in insolvency proceedings, mediation as a tool can be employed to resolve issues and clear the bottleneck in the resolution process which had led to delays.
When a Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom, it has to be presumed that the approval was given to a viable and feasible plan. Once approved, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom.
The institution or continuation of a proceeding of dishonour of cheque against company under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 fall within the ambit of moratorium provision of the IBC.
The Bangalore Sales Corporation v Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd., the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kochi Bench, comprised of Shri. P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri. Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), held that an unregistered Partnership Firm cannot institute insolvency proceedings under IBC.
Homebuyers could only engage in the IBC procedure as a class of financial creditor. Individual homebuyer rights were absorbed by homebuyer rights as a class.
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.
Confused between the Insolvency Process & Liquidation? The procedure and differences between Insolvency Process and Liquidation is explained.
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.
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.
As per proviso to Section 12 of the IBC, the insolvency resolution process shall mandatorily be completed within a period of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date, including any extension of the period of CIRP granted under Section 12 of the IBC.
The actions of the CoC by not accepting the Applicant’s Resolution Plan were void in nature and held that the Applicant must be given a fresh opportunity to participate in the process of submission of the Resolution Plan.
NCLT held that the “interest” component alone cannot be claimed or pursued, in absence of the debt, to trigger a CIRP against the corporate Debtor. Further, the application pursued realization of the interest amount alone is against the intent of the IBC, 2016.
To provide a relief to MSME and to offer them some respite from this pandemic, the process of pre-packaged insolvency resolution was introduced. This PIRP was introduced by way of ordinance dated 04.04.2021 by the Ministry of Law and Justice.