IBC

Navigating Legal Waters: Interplay between the Admiralty Act, Insolvency and Arbitration Regime of India - Part I

Summary: The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, brought much needed reform to India’s maritime legal framework. Though its coexistence with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has given rise to contentious jurisdictional issues that Indian courts continue to navigate. The article discusses judicial efforts to reconcile these legislative frameworks.

Continue Reading Navigating Legal Waters: Interplay between the Admiralty Act, Insolvency and Arbitration Regime of India – Part I
Supreme Court Gives Insolvency Claims a Fresh Lease of Life: Debt Restructuring and Substantive Compliance

Summary: The recent decision of the Supreme Court in B. Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India recognises that an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), that substantially complies with the requirements cannot be rejected merely due to insignificant errors or omissions. Further, debt restructuring can amount to acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor, extending the limitation period for filing such an application.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Gives Insolvency Claims a Fresh Lease of Life: Debt Restructuring and Substantive Compliance
Fresh Start: Balance Sheet Entries Read With Supporting Records Constitute Debt Aknowledgement, Resets Limitation

Summary: The Supreme Court has held that entries in a corporate debtor’s balance sheet, when read alongside corroborative materials including cash flow statements, constitute a valid acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby resetting the period of limitation for creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings. This ruling strengthens the position of creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not frustrate their rights to take recourse through insolvency proceedings. It also places greater responsibility on auditors and accountants, as financial statements may now carry significant consequences for both debtors and creditors by operating as binding acknowledgements of liability.

Continue Reading Fresh Start: Balance Sheet Entries Read With Supporting Records Constitute Debt Acknowledgement, Resets Limitation
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