Loading...

Our firm has beeninvolved in several high value and complex corporate restructuring, debt recovery and Insolvency related litigation across industry Sectors such as Textiles, Power, Manufacturing, Steel, Pharmaceuticals, Logistics, Retail, Infrastructure and has a proven track record of restructuring underperforming/distressed companies across various Forums such as Debt Recovery Tribunals, National Company Law Tribunals, High Courts etc.

Our firm has been actively working with MSME’s in resolution of Debts by way of Restructuring of loans, Initiating Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) through National Company Law Tribunal. Our clients include lenders and investors at all levels of the capital structure, defaulting companies, promotors / directors, financial and operational creditors, Creditor Committees (COC), insolvency professionals, liquidators, stakeholders committees, trustees and government institutions.

Our recent success stories include providing legal support to Personal Guarantors of Corporate Debtors so as to help them navigate Section 95 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and obtain relief through National Company Law Tribunal.

We have a high success rate contesting cases under section 14, Section 17& 19 of SARFAESI Act at Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals, High Courts Etc.

Our bankruptcy and insolvency litigation practice team represents both creditors (financial as well as operational) and debtors and we have a high success rate in closing cases contested/filed under Sections 7, 9, 29a and 54 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code at National Company Law Tribunals across India, National Company Law Appellate Tribunals at Chennai and Delhi , High Courts and Supreme Court.

Legal Updates on IBC- By NCLT Lawyer in, Delhi



M. Suresh Kumar Reddy Vs Canara Bank and Ors.

Date Of Article : 05/11/2023


Supreme Court reiterates that once NCLT is satisfied that default has occurred, there is hardly a discretion left with NCLT to refuse admission of the CIRP application u/s 7 IBC.

Supreme Court further clarified  that by the order in review that the decision in the case of Vidarbha Industries  was in the setting of facts of the case before this Court. 

Hence, the decision in the case of Vidarbha Industries  cannot be read and understood as taking a view which is contrary to the view taken in the cases of Innoventive Industries and E.S. Krishnamurthy . The view taken in the case of Innoventive Industries   still holds good. 

 

Legal Updates on IBC- By NCLT Lawyer in, Mumbai



Loan Sanctioned to a Suspended Director and backed by a Corporate Guarantee is a Financial Debt of Corporate Debtor u/s 5(8) of IBC

Date Of Article : 04/25/2023


Honourable NCLAT IN AVJ Heights Apartment Owners Association v. India Infoline Finance Ltd has held that Loan sanctioned to a Suspended Director and backed by the Corporate Guarantee accompanied by board resolution guaranteeing/mortgaging of Corporate Debtor is a valid financial debt and hence admissible u/s 5(8) of IBC. Honourable NCLAT held that in the present instance, financial creditor had sanctioned loan facilities in favour of appellant-suspended director of corporate debtor and wherein corporate debtor had given a corporate guarantee and Thereafter, corporate debtor was admitted into CIRP and Resolution Professional(RP) was appointed and invited claims . Honble NCLAT and NCLT held that board resolution had been passed guaranteeing/mortgaging of property belonging to the Corporate Debtor by the Corporate Debtor himself and hence the loan provided to Suspended Director is admissible as a claim against the Corporate Debtor.

Legal Updates on IBC- By NCLT Lawyer



Nature of Financial Transactions need to be investigated. Mere Debt and Default is NOT sufficient to admit Corporate Debtor in to CIRP

Date Of Article : 04/10/2023


Honourable NCLAT in Ocean Deity Investment Holdings Ltd. v. Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd has held that merely because there was a debt and default, it could not be construed that a section 7 application was required to be admitted; Honourable NCLAT has also held that the Adjudicating Authority ought to have examined nature of financial transactions before admitting section 7 application against corporate debtor.

Legal Updates on IBC- By NCLT Lawyer



Section 29-A continue to permeate section 31(1)(f) which is applicable during the liquidation process

Date Of Article : 02/03/2023


Supreme Court in the matter of Bank of Baroda v. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. (supra), where Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating its earlier pronouncements, held that the provisions of Section 29-A continue to permeate section 31(1)(f) which is applicable during the liquidation process and that section 29-A has been enacted to facilitate corporate governance and in larger public interest

Legal Updates on IBC- By NCLT Lawyer



Prosecution under Section 70 of IBC can only be initiated by IBBI or Central Government or person Authorised by Central Government.

Date Of Article : 02/11/2023


Prosecution under Section 70 of IBC can only be initiated by IBBI or Central Government or person Authorised by Central Government. In the event of non-cooperation and non-provision of Information and any other offence committed by Suspended Promoters, Officials of Corporate Debtor, neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Resolution professional can initiate prosecution under section 70 of IBC.

Legal Updates on IBC- By NCLT Lawyer



Resolution Professional entitled to continue prosecution of Suspended Directors of Corporate Debtor for Avoidance Transactions even after conclusion of CIRP.

Date Of Article : 02/12/2023


TATA STEEL BSL LIMITED ..... Appellant versus VENUS RECRUITER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS...... Respondents Delhi High Court. Key Take Aways:- 1) RP entitled to continue to prosecute suspended promoters of corporate Debtor under Section ,43-51 and 66 and 67 of IBC even after finalisation of Resolution plan of corporate Debtor and his fees will be decided by Adjudicating Authority. 2) Section 43-51, 66-67 of IB, largely endeavor to enhance the pool of assets of the corporate debtor available for either making it a lucrative prospect for a Resolution Applicant or in the event of liquidation, for distribution among creditors. The avoidance of these transactions essentially prevents unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of a Creditor. 3) Avoidance applications and CIRP are separate set of proceedings and adjudication of avoidance application is independent of resolution of Corporate Debtor and survives CIRP. 4) The Amount made available after transactions are avoided shall go solely to the Financial Creditors who have taken substantial haircuts and In accordance with Sections 44 to 51 of the IBC, 2016, the amount which is recovered can be distributed amongst the secure creditors in accordance with law as determined by the NCLT