the Operational Creditors are only entitled for minimum of the Liquidation Value and NIL payment to Operational Creditors in case the Liquidation Value is NIL, does not contravene the provisions of Section 30(2)(b) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
In the light of the provisions and section 238 of IBC, when there arises any inconsistency between the aforementioned two laws the provision of IBC will prevail over the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002.
The Government needs to re-look certain provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) as a situation might emerge where there is only one buyer for a stressed asset
Director liability during financial distress- An interplay of the IBC, 2016 and the Companies Act, 2013. It is undisputed that in times of solvency, director’s responsibilities are mainly directed towards shareholders, under the guidance of the Companies Act.
The provisions Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 specifically provides for treatment for all sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund
Interim Finance is defined under Section 5 (15) of the IBC, 2016 which means
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 criminal case brought under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act against the natural persons would not be over by application of the IBC’s provisions.
The fast track process which can be initiated by a creditor or the corporate debtor itself cuts down the time taken to complete an insolvency resolution to almost half as compared to the regular process under the IBC.
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.
The IBC would prevail over The Customs Act, to the extent that once the moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC, as the case may be, the respondent authority has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of custom duty and other levies.
A key element that differentiates the IBC from previous legislation governing corporate insolvency is the distribution waterfall in the event of liquidation.
interim finance can be raised by the resolution professional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The resolution professional is authorized to raise interim finance after obtaining approval from the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
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 constitution of COC for one project instead of all is against the regular practice of CIRP. In the past two years, the NCLAT has passed similar orders in various cases and called them Reverse CIRP.
join For Updates