NCLT

Subscribe to NCLT via RSS
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

    CCI Nod Mandatory Before Committee Of Creditors’ Approval Under The Code, Says Supreme Court

    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

    “Related Party” Creditor Under IBC: Making A Case For Purposive Interpretation

    The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same. For this purpose, the Code stipulates that “related parties” should not (i) regain control of the company either by means of submitting a resolution plan (Section 29A); or (ii) be allowed to influence the resolution process by participating and voting in CoC meetings (first proviso to Section 21(2)).Continue Reading “Related Party” Creditor Under IBC: Making A Case For Purposive Interpretation

    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  

    Flipping the Script on Reverse Mergers: Analysis of The Latest Amendment to Merger Rules

    Introduction

    The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) on September 9, 2024, amended Rule 25A of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 (effective from September 17, 2024), by introducing sub-rule 5. The amendment is intended to promote seamless mergers and amalgamations between a foreign holding company incorporated outside India and an Indian company, being a wholly-owned subsidiary company incorporated in India, i.e., an inbound cross-border reverse merger.Continue Reading Flipping the Script on Reverse Mergers: Analysis of The Latest Amendment to Merger Rules

    The Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”) stands as a cornerstone of corporate regulation in India. It lays down a comprehensive compliance framework for body corporates as well as their officers to protect the rights and interests of shareholders and investors. In the first part of this two-part blog series, we seek to address the ambiguities pertaining to proactive rectifications of the non-compliances and contraventions under the Act. In the second blog, we will discuss the threshold for liability of “officers in default” under the Act.Continue Reading Ambiguities in Regulatory Thresholds for Rectifying Breaches under the Companies Act, 2013

    Bombay High Court upholds NCLT’s decision to release ED attached properties after nod to IBC Resolution Plan

    The High Court of Bombay (“Court”) in a recent judgment[1] has upheld the NCLT’s powers to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, once a resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor had been approved. The Court’s decision was based on an interpretation of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).Continue Reading Bombay High Court upholds NCLT’s decision to release ED attached properties after nod to IBC Resolution Plan