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.
The government has introduced the pre-packaged insolvency resolution process (PPIRP) for MSMEs, which allows them to initiate an insolvency process with the approval of two-thirds of their creditors.
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 UNCITRAL Model Law has been strongly recommended for providing a wide-ranging solution for resolving cross-border insolvency issues.
Specifically in insolvency proceedings, mediation as a tool can be employed to resolve issues and clear the bottleneck in the resolution process which had led to delays.
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.
The actions of the CoC by not accepting the Applicant’s Resolution Plan were void in nature and held that the Applicant must be given a fresh opportunity to participate in the process of submission of the Resolution Plan.
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.
To provide a relief to MSME and to offer them some respite from this pandemic, the process of pre-packaged insolvency resolution was introduced. This PIRP was introduced by way of ordinance dated 04.04.2021 by the Ministry of Law and Justice.
The apex court held that the Code isn’t a machinery for recovery though its usage in several perspectives still be within the nature of a recovery system.
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.
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.
Gujarat High Court dismissed Essar Steel’s petition and refused to grant any of the reliefs sought by Essar Steel. The Gujarat High Court moved quickly and efficiently, and the order was issued within 10 working days of Essar Steel’s filing of the case.
IBC was introduced to reorganise, restructure or to consolidate the existing framework into a single law for the purpose of Insolvency and Bankruptcy.
NCLT clarified many controversial legal issues surrounding telecom spectrum, including whether it could be subjected to IBC proceedings whether the bankrupt telcos could sell spectrum rights allotted to them as part of the IBC resolution process.
join For Updates