The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) marks a significant milestone in the realm of insolvency and bankruptcy resolution in India. With its passage by Parliament and Presidential assent on May 28, 2016, the IBC revolutionized the legal framework surrounding insolvency and bankruptcy.
The fast-track CIRP is designed to expedite the insolvency process for smaller companies and enable their efficient restructuring or liquidation.
There is no specific threshold limit for the NCLT Delhi under the IBC 2016. The IBC provides that a financial creditor, operational creditor, or the corporate debtor itself can initiate the insolvency resolution process with the NCLT.
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).
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’
Claim of the rental lease will be treated as operational debt under Section 5(21) of the code as per the decision given by the Hon’ble NCLAT.
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.
Both operational creditors and financial creditors own certain advantages over each other. But Financial creditors are given some priorities over other creditors such as they are members of the creditor’s committee and have voting power etc and operational is not a member of the creditor’s committee.
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.
Supreme Court’s decision in Maharashtra Seamless Limited shows that the commercial wisdom of the CoC will be given top priority when deciding on the feasibility and viability of the resolution plan.
The Supreme Court clarified the code’s object while keeping legislative intent in mind. The court, through this judgement, has struck a balance between creditors’ rights and debtor companies’ remedies.
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.
IBC is economic legislation and that when it comes to economic legislation, flexibility should be given to the legislature because no economic law can be fool proof at its inception.
IBC was introduced to reorganise, restructure or to consolidate the existing framework into a single law for the purpose of Insolvency and Bankruptcy.
join For Updates