Section 33(5) of IBC doesn’t bar legal proceedings against a ship owned by Corporate Debtor in liquidation: Bombay HC

It is evident upon reading Section 33(5) that this clause merely forbids the filing of a lawsuit or other legal action against the Corporate Debtor. It in no way precludes the filing of a lawsuit or starting another legal action against a ship or vessel owned by the corporate debtor.

Cheque Bouncing Versus Insolvency– Whether proceedings under Section 138 and 141 of N.I. Act, 1881 can be initiated against Corporate Debtor during Moratorium period?

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.

NCLT can issue non-bailable warrants against persons under IBC: NCLAT

The directors of the suspended corporate debtor filed an appeal against the National Company Law Tribunal’s (“NCLT”) ruling that rejected their request to have a non-bailable warrant issued against them.

The Conundrum of Reverse Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

Reverse CIRP is still in an experimentation process and we should wait for more cases in which Reverse CIRP is applied and then observe its effect.

CIRP proceedings could be initiated against both corporate co-borrowers, but the recovery of the same amount could not be made from both parties: SC

CIRP proceedings under section 7 can be initiated against corporate debtors who are co-borrowers but there can be no double recovery of the same amount from both.

FUTURE OF MEDIATION IN INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS

Being the least expensive and less time-consuming, Mediation is popular ADR in India. The mediator plays the role of a neutral party who helps the parties to have direct communication and assists in exploring the options and a mutually accepted agreement.

Are Corporate Guarantors equivalent to Corporate Debtors

The Supreme Court has made an attempt to shed light on this matter recently in K. Paramasivan v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. An appeal is preferred before the apex court under which the NCLAT decision is challenged.

Proposed Amendment by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Proposed Amendments in a circular issued on 18.01.2023, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has proposed numerous changes in IBC.

Unregistered Partnership Firm Cannot Initiate Insolvency Proceedings Under IBC: NCLT Kochi

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.

IBC Does Not Prohibit an Assignee from Continuing Pending Section 7 Proceedings: Judgement by NCLAT Delhi

A person to whom a debt has been properly assigned or transferred is also included in the definition of “Financial Creditor” under Section 5(7) of the IBC.

Is Adjudicating Authority under obligation to accept an application against a Corporate Debtor u/s 7?

The Adjudicating Authorities have been given discretionary powers under section 7(5)(a) of I&B Code, 2016. The Authorities are required to apply their mind and take into consideration all facts and circumstances.

Article 1 of the Limitation Act, is not applicable to proceedings under the IBC Laws

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.

Whether CIRP against Corporate Guarantor be initiated in respect of loan account of the principal borrower

Section 7 of the Code permits a financial creditor to initiate a CIRP procedure against the guarantor being a corporate debtor in accordance with the default committed by the principal borrower.

Creditors can request for a transfer of the winding up proceedings to NCLT: Supreme Court

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.