The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (for short “I&B Code”), enacted in 2016, marked a significant reform in India’s economic landscape by streamlining the insolvency resolution process and providing a balanced framework.
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.
There is no such provision to implead creditors other than the ones which triggered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
Directing the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter, the apex court said that the NCLAT must have notified the bank (Financial Creditor) before closing the CIRP initiated by the NCLT.
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.
Under Section 7 of the IBC, this amendment allowed the home buyer to initiate insolvency proceedings against defaulting Promoters. However, the Insolvency Amendment 2018 was challenged in the Supreme Court of India by approximately 200 realtors.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) is the preeminent dynamic body in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Choices with respect to the organization of the corporate borrower are taken at the gatherings of the Committee, in light of a dominant part vote of the individuals.
Homebuyers are now considered financial creditors, whereas operational creditors, who are from the business world, may have a better understanding of the industry but still lack those rights.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) has complete wisdom and right to decide the fate of the company under CIRP. Lets understand all about Committee of Creditors under Insolvency Laws
The limitation period cannot be extended, given the statutory provision under Section 19 of the Limitation Act as the Corporate Debtor has made part payment after expiration of the period of limitation.
The rationale of the Ordinance is certainly to ensure that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 lives up to its preamble that is – maximization of value of assets. The newly inserted Section 10A certainly brings about a balance of interest between creditors and debtors.
As per the settled law there is no law or provision which states that either the Adjudicating or the Appellate Authority has the powers to question the resolution plan approved by the COC until and unless the same is barred by some irregularity.
The IBBI has disclosed that work is in progress to amend the IBC to make it compliant with cross border insolvency processes.
There is a certainty that the time-barred debt can be revived even after the lapse of an initial period of limitation which is 3 years.
The Appellants cannot be permitted to pursue alternative remedy of suit/arbitration proceeding even if pending as Resolution Plan is binding on all the stakeholders.
join For Updates