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.

Machine learning, deep learning, artificial neural networks, rule-based expert systems, and natural language processing are a few examples of artificial intelligence technologies employed in worldwide insolvency and bankruptcy processes.

A key element that differentiates the IBC from previous legislation governing corporate insolvency is the distribution waterfall in the event of liquidation.

Liquidator lacks the authority to reject or modify already admitted claims if he receives any new information. Only the Adjudicating Authority may be contacted by the Liquidator to request adjustment of the admitted claims.

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 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.

Case of “Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG shipyard vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in which it was held that the IBC provisions will prevail over the provisions laid down in the “Customs Act, 1962” and also set aside the order of the NCLAT”.

NCLT specified the dress code for NCLT President, NCLT Members, Legal Practitioners, Authorized Representatives, Interim Resolution Professional, Liquidator, Resolution Professional, and parties present in person.

The conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary regarding judicial appointment is not new. Its most visible manifestation was when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appointed Justice A.N. Ray as the Chief Justice in 1975 out of turn, as a “reward” for his pro-government stance in the Kesavananda Bharti Case. This led to much public outcry, on the grounds of violation of judicial independence.

A father-son duo in Chennai was arrested by the police on grounds of violating social distancing guidelines and subsequently tortured in custody to the extent that the two lost their lives. Since then, custodial deaths have been rising in India, reaching the figure of 88 in 2022 as per the National Crime Records Bureau.

The adoption of the Model Law will help in the ease of doing business and significantly increase the inflow of FDI into India by way of cross-border mergers and acquisitions.

The UNCITRAL Model Law has been strongly recommended for providing a wide-ranging solution for resolving cross-border insolvency issues.

In the recent case given by the retired Hon’ble Supreme court Judge CJI Ramana. He said that in case of any conflict, the IBC will override the Customs Acts.

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.