IBC

Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shareholders Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings: Supreme Court

Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship. This landmark judgement reinforces the fundamental distinction between debt and equity, clarifying that IBC remedies are available only to creditors and not shareholders.Continue Reading Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shareholders Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings: Supreme Court

Judicial Interplay with Legislation: Analysing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [Part II]

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]

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]

Beyond Approval: Decoding The Committee of Creditors’ Continuing Role Under the IBC

Summary: The article addresses a critical unanswered question in Indian insolvency law: whether the Committee of Creditors (CoC) becomes functus officio after NCLT approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC, a question with significant academic and practical implications. Through harmonious interpretation of existing provisions, the authors argue that the CoC remains in existence until the Supreme Court finally decides on any questions pertaining to the resolution plan, as the corporate insolvency resolution process continues through the appellate hierarchy. However, while inferential support exists for this position, urgent legislative intervention is needed to provide an explicit statutory framework defining the CoC’s post-approval powers and to eliminate the current legal uncertainty.Continue Reading Beyond Approval: Decoding The Committee of Creditors’ Continuing Role Under the IBC

IBC vs. PMLA: Supreme Court Reinforces Jurisdictional Boundaries in Kalyani Transco Case

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.Continue Reading IBC vs. PMLA: Supreme Court Reinforces Jurisdictional Boundaries in Kalyani Transco Case

Supreme Court Reiterates Finality of Approved Resolution Plans: No Scope for Reviving Arbitration Claims Post-CIRP

Introduction

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

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

    Navigating Legal Crossroads: Interplay between IBC and NI Act

    INTRODUCTION

    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

    Real Estate Insolvency: Waivers contemplated under approved resolution plan override transfer / change in shareholding charges demanded by Industrial Development Authorities

    In a recent judgment[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the approval of a resolution plan which provided that there should be an exemption from payment of (i) any type of fees/ penalties for renewal of sub-lease; and (ii) transfer charges due to change in directorship/ shareholding in favour of the resolution applicant…

    Interim Moratorium Not An Escape From Consumer Penalties: Supreme Court Clarifies

    INTRODUCTION

    While expanding the jurisprudence of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“IBC”), the Division Bench of the Supreme Court (“SC”), in Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth and Ors.,[1] held that an interim moratorium under the IBC does not apply to execution proceedings for penalties imposed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“Consumer Protection Act”). Once an insolvency application is admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, moratorium under the IBC comes into effect, which is a temporary suspension of legal actions against the debtor. Continue Reading Interim Moratorium Not An Escape From Consumer Penalties: Supreme Court Clarifies