Photo of Srideepa Bhattacharyya

Srideepa Bhattacharyya

Subscribe to Srideepa Bhattacharyya's Posts

Principal Associate in the Dispute Resolution Practice at the Delhi office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Srideepa focuses on disputes in relation to insolvency proceedings, debt recovery and corporate – commercial litigation. She can be reached at srideepa.bhattacharyya@cyrilshroff.com

Contact:Read more about Srideepa Bhattacharyya
Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code

Over the last few years, several cases of defaulting real estate companies, including major players like, Amrapali, Jaypee Infratech and Supertech, have been stuck at various stages of insolvency proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended (“Code”). As per the data provided by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”), a total of 344 corporate debtors engaged in construction and real estate activities have been admitted into corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) as of September 2022.[i]Continue Reading Proposed Amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code- A Real Solution For Real Estate Insolvencies?

Duly Noted” Notice period for subsequent sale notice under Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 relaxed by the Supreme Court.

Introduction

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in S. Karthik & Ors. v. N. Subhash Chand Jain & Ors.[1](“S. Karthik”), recently relaxed the mandatory pre-requisites prescribed for sale of mortgaged assets under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (“The SI Rules”), under certain circumstances. It was held that when a sale notice under the SI Rules does not result in a sale due to reasons entirely attributable to the borrower, then the lender need not wait another 30 days before selling the mortgaged assets through a subsequent sale notice. This decision assumes significance as it is indicative of a lender friendly approach in monetising their security interests by adopting a flexible standard in interpreting the procedural prerequisites, rather than reading them pedantically. This blog examines the judgement in detail.Continue Reading “Duly Noted”: Notice period for subsequent sale notice under Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 relaxed by the Supreme Court

Lease and Rentals - Are these Operational Debt under the IBC

INTRODUCTION

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) recognises two types of debts — financial and operational– to enable the creditors to make an application for initiating insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor. A financial creditor and an operational creditor can initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) under Section 7 and Section 9 of the Code, respectively. If there is a debt, other than a financial debt or an operational debt, the creditor will not qualify to apply under Sections 7 or 9 of the Code, as the case may be. Therefore, it becomes important to determine the nature of debt/claim while considering the application of an admission under the Code.
Continue Reading Lease and Rentals: Are these Operational Debt under the IBC?

Karnataka High Court’s Judgment in Dreamz Infra India Limited v. Competent Authority - Yet another manifestation of primacy of the IBC

Since the introduction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code/IBC”), the courts and tribunals in India have had to constantly assess the application of the Code vis-à-vis other central and state legislations in light of the non-obstante clause under Section 238 of the Code.  The courts have time and again reiterated that the Code would have an overriding effect over other legislations to the extent of being repugnant  to the matters exhaustively dealt with under the Code. The courts have re-affirmed the primacy of the Code based on the premise that the IBC is a ‘complete and consolidated code in itself.’ For example, in Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank and Ors. (“Innoventive”), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the primacy of the Code over the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 and in Directorate of Enforcement vs. Manoj Kumar Agarwal & Ors (“Manoj Kumar Agarwal case”), the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal  (“NCLAT”) noted that the  provisions of the Code shall override the attachment of the properties of the Corporate Debtor under Sections 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.[1]
Continue Reading Karnataka High Court’s Judgment in Dreamz Infra India Limited v. Competent Authority: Yet another manifestation of primacy of the IBC

Attachment Details Insolvency-and-Bankruptcy-Code-Re-affirming-its-primacy-over-the-Prevention-of-Money-Laundering-Act-2002

It has been an active month for the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”/ “IBC”). On one hand, the legislature has inserted a new chapter into the Code providing for pre-packed insolvency resolution process for micro, small or medium enterprises (“MSMEs”) to ease and fast track the resolution for the stressed MSMEs, while on the other hand, Courts through various landmark decisions have upheld the primacy of the Code which will play a significant role in boosting the confidence of the stakeholders, particularly the creditors and the resolution applicants, in the sanctity of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIR Process”).
Continue Reading Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Re-affirming its primacy over the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Lenders as Promoters under RERA regime - Analysing Haryana Real Estate Regulation Authority’s recent Order in Supertech Hues case

Introduction

The Haryana Real Estate Regulation Authority (“HRERA”) has recently delivered an unprecedented order in the matter of Deepak Chowdhary Vs PNB Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors. (“Supertech Hues case/ Order”)[1]. This Order will have implications on banks and other financial institutions, which provide credit to real estate companies, while also bringing into focus, the conflict between the rights of such banks and financial institutions vis-à-vis the rights of allottees of such projects. Despite the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA/Act”), contemplating mortgage loans to be the “first funders” of a real estate project[2], the HRERA has passed an order, which may have implications on secured lenders when it comes to exercising their rights to enforce their security.
Continue Reading Lenders as Promoters under RERA regime: Analysing Haryana Real Estate Regulation Authority’s recent Order in Supertech Hues case

Resetting the Clock Supreme Court Sends Jaypee Infratech Limited Back to NCLT for CIRP

By utilising its powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has delivered an unprecedented decision on August 09, 2018 in Chitra Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors[1]., and other connected matters (the Jaypee / homebuyers Case)[2]. In this era of evolving jurisprudence on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Supreme Court, by this landmark decision, has settled some highly debated issues with respect to its implementation and has provided much required certainty. This has been achieved by the Supreme Court paving the way to reset the clock by re-commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).Continue Reading Resetting the Clock: Supreme Court Sends Jaypee Infratech Limited Back to NCLT for CIRP