Photo of Aniruddh Gambhir

Aniruddh Gambhir

Subscribe to Aniruddh Gambhir's Posts

Principal Associate in the Dispute Resolution Team at the Mumbai office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Aniruddh specializes in commercial litigation with a special focus on insolvency matters. He has also had experience in general disputes and advisory work. He can be reached at aniruddh.gambhir@cyrilshroff.com

Recognition of Indian CIRP in Singapore: A Step Forward for Cross-Border Insolvency

INTRODUCTION

    In Re Compuage Infocom Ltd[1] (“Judgment”), the Singapore High Court (“Court”) has recognized the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of an Indian company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and granted assistance to the Resolution Professional (“RP”) appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). Applying the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997)[2] (‘Model Law’), as adopted by Singapore by way of Section 252 and the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, 2018 (“IRDA”), the Judgment deals with several key issues, including whether the NCLT is a ‘foreign court’, whether RPs are ‘foreign representatives’, and whether repatriation of assets located in a foreign jurisdiction can be permitted for the benefit of creditors in other jurisdictions. This is the first such ruling in Singapore and is a welcome development. This piece discusses the key findings in the Judgment and their implications for all stakeholders involved in the CIRP of Indian companies.Continue Reading Recognition of Indian CIRP in Singapore: A Step Forward for Cross-Border Insolvency

    Choosing the Correct Door: NCLAT Clarifies Jurisdiction for Insolvency of Personal Guarantors

    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”), has clarified and resolved the ambiguity surrounding the question of jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to entertain insolvency applications against personal guarantors where no corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is pending against the corporate debtor. The issue was addressed through a recent judgment dated January 23, 2025, in Anita Goyal vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Anr.[1] (“Judgement”).Continue Reading Choosing the Correct Door: NCLAT Clarifies Jurisdiction for Insolvency of Personal Guarantors

    Proving default: IU reports not the be-all and end-all

    As per the scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), an application for initiation of corporate initiation resolution process (“CIRP”) can be filed by the debtor itself or by a financial or operational creditor. The Code provides for filing of record of default recorded with the Information Utility (“IU”) as evidence of default, along with other specified documents.Continue Reading Proving default: IU reports not the be-all and end-all  

    Relevant or Relied Upon? Bombay High Court Clears Air on Disclosure of Information by Banks in Wilful Defaulter Proceedings

    In Mr. Milind Patel v. Union Bank of India & Ors.[1] (“Judgment”), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (“Court”) has inter alia held that lenders/ banks seeking to invoke the Reserve Bank of India, Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters (“Master Circular”) for declaring entities and/ or persons as wilful defaulters, must supply all relevant materials to the noticee, which includes not only incriminating material but also exculpatory material. The Court therefore clarified that a bank is obligated to provide all relevant materials and not just information ‘referred to’ and ‘relied upon’ in the show-cause notice when conducting proceedings under the Master Circular.Continue Reading Relevant or Relied Upon? Bombay High Court Clears Air on Disclosure of Information by Banks in Wilful Defaulter Proceedings