NCLAT

Subscribe to NCLAT via RSS
Jet, Set and Grounded – Supreme Court orders liquidation of Jet Airways

Introduction

The saga of the insolvency resolution of Jet Airways India Limited (“Jet”), once India’s leading airline, has disappointingly culminated, after several twists and turns, in a liquidation order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated November 7, 2024[1] (“SC Judgment”). The SC came to this conclusion upon having found that the Jalan-Kalrock Consortium[2], the successful resolution applicant (“SRA”), had failed to implement the resolution plan as was approved by the Adjudicating Authority in 2021 (“Plan”).Continue Reading Jet, Set and Grounded – Supreme Court orders liquidation of Jet Airways

The Paradox of Security Interest for Dissenting Secured Creditors: Has the Paridhi Finvest Judgement settled the issue?

Introduction

The jurisprudence on the basis for pay-outs to dissenting secured financial creditors (“Secured DFCs”), under an approved resolution plan, has been in the flux for a while now. The issue remains pending before a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, pursuant to reference made by a coordinate bench, vide an order…

Is the NCLT’s approach in the Philips India case too literal?

Introduction

The Kolkata Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), on September 19, 2024, dismissed an application filed under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act”), in Philips India Limited[1] (the “Order”), on the grounds that Section 66 of the Companies Act cannot be invoked for capital reduction when the circumstances mentioned in Section 66(a) or 66(b) of the Companies Act are not met. The NCLT held that Section 66, which provides for reduction of share capital, cannot be used merely to provide liquidity or exit to minority shareholders, or to save on administrative costs. The Order attempts to justify the same on the grounds that the proposed share capital reduction was only incidental to the main objective of buy-back of shares.[2] However, this observation is in stark contrast to a catena of NCLT and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) orders, as well as decisions of various High Courts that have time and again noted that a company may reduce its share capital in any manner as it deems fit, and courts have limited role in such schemes of capital reduction.Continue Reading Is the NCLT’s approach in the Philips India case too literal?

Stock Broker is a Financial Service Provider – The NCLAT ruling may offer respite

While the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) provides for insolvency resolution and liquidation of ‘corporate persons’, it excludes ‘financial service provider’ (“FSP(s)”) from the said provision. The Central Government, pursuant to its powers under Section 227 of IBC, had notified Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency and Liquidation Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2019 (“FSP Rules”) for resolving specified non-banking financial companies (“Specified NBFCs”) registered with the Reserve Bank of India.[1]Continue Reading Stock Broker is a Financial Service Provider – The NCLAT ruling may offer respite

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”).Continue Reading Limitation under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Too Strict Interpretation of the Law?

Shareholders Rights

In a corporate democracy, the rule of majority prevails, period! Hence, in most jurisdictions, shareholders’ resolutions may be passed by a simple majority, or, where the decision may be critical to the operations or the future of a company, by a super/ special majority of at least, three-fourths. In this way, the decision of the majority binds all members/ shareholders.Continue Reading Protection and Redressal of Minority Shareholder Rights

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?

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