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.

Whether IBC prevails over Custom Act?

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.

NEW CHALLENGES IN THE IBC WATERFALL MECHANISM

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

Interim Finance – A Source of Operational Funding under IBC

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).

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.

Cross-Border Mergers and IBC

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.

IBC Overrides the Limitation Act

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.

NIL payment to OC’s if Liquidation Value is NIL, doesn’t contravene the provisions of S. 30(2)(b) of IBC, 2016: NCLAT, New Delhi

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.

SC resorts to Article 142 of the Constitution to cut short IBC technicalities to benefit home-buyers

The Apex Court used its authority under Article 142 to allow the CIRP proceedings to be withdrawn and to adjudicate all outstanding issues between the parties in the greater interest of the homebuyers.

Operational Debt Includes Advance Payment Made to a Corporate Debtor for the supply of Goods or Services: SC

A debt arising from an advance payment given to a corporate debtor for the supply of goods or services would be deemed an operational debt.

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.

Appeals and Limitations under Section 17 of the Limitations Act

Since a specific limitation period for filing such an appeal is clearly mentioned, Section 17 of the Limitation Act could not be applied here.

Putting Resolution Professionals under the spotlight: The latest IBC Amendments

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.

Wages/salaries of only those employees who worked during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process are to be included in CIRP costs, rules SC

The claims filed/to be submitted by the workers of the appellant must be decided upon and taken into consideration by the Liquidator even if RP has not submitted the claims towards the wages/salaries as part of CIRP costs.

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.