![Judicial Interplay with Legislation: Analysing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [Part II]](https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/894/2025/11/Blog-Image14-656x375.png)
Continuing the analysis presented in Part I of this blog, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (“Bill”), proposes incorporation of the rationale laid down by various judicial forums in the following judgments:Continue Reading Judicial Interplay with Legislation: Analysing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [Part II]
![Judicial Interplay with Legislation: Analysing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [Part I]](https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/894/2025/10/Blog-Image-656x375.png)
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (“Bill”), introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 12, 2025, represents a significant legislative response to India’s evolving insolvency jurisprudence by codifying key judicial pronouncements and introducing global best practices. This two part blog elaborates upon the Bill that recommends comprehensive reform addressing critical ambiguities and operational challenges that have emerged through landmark judicial decisions, whilst strengthening India’s position as a jurisdiction conducive to business revival and creditor protection. Understanding the Bill is essential for insolvency practitioners, creditors, and corporate stakeholders to navigate the enhanced framework for value maximisation and timely resolution of corporate distress.Continue Reading Judicial Interplay with Legislation: Analysing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [Part I]
In an authoritative pronouncement concerning the interplay between arbitration proceedings and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Electrosteel Steel Limited v. Ispat Carrier Private Limited (Civil Appeal No. 2896 of 2024, decided on April 21, 2025)[1] (“Electrosteel”) has reinforced the legal position that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not forming part of the plan stand extinguished. This includes claims that are subject to pending legal proceedings.Continue Reading Supreme Court Reiterates Finality of Approved Resolution Plans: No Scope for Reviving Arbitration Claims Post-CIRP
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
The intersection between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), has caused significant judicial deliberation, particularly concerning creditor rights, financial discipline, and the resolution of financial distress. Section 138 of the NI Act holds the drawer of the cheque liable in case of dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds. The provision imposes penal consequences on the drawer, serving as a deterrent against indiscriminate issuances of cheques and safeguarding creditors’ interests.[1]Continue Reading Navigating Legal Crossroads: Interplay between IBC and NI Act
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Court”) recent judgment in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja, 2025 SCC Online Sc 181 is a landmark decision. It highlights the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), and the Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act”), in the context of resolution plans involving combinations that may have an appreciable adverse effect on competition (“AAEC”) in the relevant market.Continue Reading CCI Nod Mandatory Before Committee Of Creditors’ Approval Under The Code, Says Supreme Court
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
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1] judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”). In this case, an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), was pending against a Section 34 award and the Appellant submitted a claim for the same subsequent to the committee of creditors (“COC”) approving the resolution plan. Continue Reading Pending Section 37 Appeal under Arbitration Act: Not a Legitimate Ground for Entertaining Belated Claim under IBC