Companies Act

Background

Key Managerial Personnel (“KMP”) play an integral role in the management and functioning of a company. Earlier, the Companies Act, 1956 under Section 269, provided for the appointment of managing or whole-time director or manager in certain cases. However, the Dr. J.J. Irani Report[1], recognized that the board of directors (“Board”) typically look towards KMP for formulation and execution of policies and recognized their role in conducting the affairs of the company. The Committee highlighted the need to recognise the concept of KMP, govern such appointments and identify them as officers responsible for certain functions of the company, along with making them liable for any related non-compliances. Further, the Parliamentary Standing Committees on the Companies Bill in 2009 and 2011[2] also discussed the necessity for the concept of KMP to be included in the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act”). Accordingly, the Companies Act, re-envisioned the importance of KMP and for the first time provided for a detailed definition of KMP along with the provisions governing their appointment.

Continue Reading Key Managerial Personnel Appointments: Applicability of Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013 to private companies: does the NCLAT order cast the net too wide?

Admission of application Section 7(5)(a) not mandatory even when default established: Supreme Court clarifies

Introduction

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment passed in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited1, adjudicated upon whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“) is a mandatory or discretionary provision i.e. on an application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP“) by a financial creditor.

Continue Reading Admission of application Section 7(5)(a) not mandatory even when default established: Supreme Court clarifies

Invesco v Zee

In a recent judgment pronounced in Invesco Developing Markets Fund v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited[1] (“Judgment”), on March 22, 2022, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (“BHC”) allowed Invesco’s appeal against a judgment dated October 26, 2021[2]. The October 26 judgment was passed by a Single Judge of the BHC (referred to hereinafter as the “Impugned Order”), which had granted an injunction restraining Invesco from calling for and holding an extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) of Zee.

Continue Reading Bombay High Court’s Judgment in Invesco v Zee– A major boost for shareholders’ rights in India

claim for refund of advance amount

Introduction

Since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“IBC”), the Indian judiciary has been facing numerous interpretational challenges on various provisions of the IBC. While certain challenges have been put to rest by introducing amendments to the legislation, a larger bunch of the issues have been settled by interpretations adopted by the judiciary. The Courts and Tribunals, in interpreting the provisions of the IBC, have aspired to achieve the objective of the IBC, i.e. maximising the value of assets of the corporate debtor.

Continue Reading Is Claim for Refund of Advance an ‘Operational Debt’? SC Comes to Rescue

Devas Antrix Case

Background

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court (“SC”) in Devas Multimedia Private Limited v. Antrix Corporation Limited[1] (“the Antrix case”) has many interesting facets. It brings to light some interesting questions of law on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the Bilateral Investment Treaties when the claimant company (Decree holder) is ordered to be wound up (for the first time in India)  on the grounds of fraud, which is against the public policy of India and most jurisdictions that are signatories to the New York Convention.

Continue Reading SC’s decision in the Devas Antrix Case: Does it dilute evidentiary value of the Auditor’s Report under the Companies Act?

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?

Limitation Act is to be Made Applicable ‘As Far as May Be Possible’ to Insolvency Code

The Supreme Court’s pro-insolvency stance continues. With three recent rulings in a period of one month, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that, so far as possible within the contours of the Limitation Act, a debt will continue to be alive and an action basis such debt will be maintainable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Insolvency Code”) against a defaulting borrower.
Continue Reading Limitation Act is to be made applicable ‘as far as may be possible’ to Insolvency Code

 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

IBC and Limitation - The Dust Settles Blog

The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana vs Union Bank of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020] (“Laxmi Pat”) has settled the issue of the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) to applications for initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Apex Court has held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act (“Section 18”) applies to extend the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC.
Continue Reading IBC and Limitation: The Dust Settles

The provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act), and the rules framed thereunder, mandate companies to file requisite documents, including annual returns and financial statements, with the concerned Registrar of Companies (RoC) of their jurisdiction. Non-adherence to such provisions and non-filing of the requisite documents is an offence, exposing non-complaint companies and its directors to severe penal consequences, including fines and prosecution.

However, the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) would clearly reveal that a lot of companies have been non-compliant with their filings. This non-compliance has been a menace to all the stakeholders involved, including, inter alia, (i) the companies and directors who have to face penal consequences for such non-compliances; (ii) the MCA and its administration who are engaged in the process of updating the records; (iii) the public/ shareholders who do not get access to the records of the companies; and (iv) the NCLT and the office of Regional Directors, which are burdened with compounding cases.

Continue Reading A Fresh Start for Companies