Insolvency and company law
The IBC, SARFAESI and the Companies Act.
All 12 judgments in our library on this topic, oldest first.
0 of 12 read
Start: Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of IndiaYour progress is kept in this browser. Sign in to keep it on every device and count it in your reading streak.
8 April 2004 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of IndiaThe Court upheld the SARFAESI Act, 2002, subject to safeguards it read in, but struck down Section 17(2), which required a borrower to deposit 75% of the claimed amount before approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal, as violating Article 14.
On this path for: Section 13, SARFAESI Act, 2002; Section 17(2), SARFAESI Act, 2002 (as originally enacted); Section 34, SARFAESI Act, 2002
8 May 2017 · 2 judges
Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Commission of IndiaThe Court upheld the finding that three manufacturers of aluminium phosphide tablets had rigged bids for FCI tenders, and held that penalty under Section 27(b) of the Competition Act is computed on relevant turnover, not total turnover.
On this path for: Section 3(1) and 3(3)(d), Competition Act, 2002; Section 27(b), Competition Act, 2002; Section 26(1), Competition Act, 2002
21 September 2017 · 2 judges
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd.An operational creditor's insolvency application under Section 9 IBC must be rejected if the corporate debtor shows a pre-existing dispute that is plausible and not spurious, hypothetical or illusory; the Adjudicating Authority does not decide its merits.
On this path for: Section 5(6), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
25 January 2019 · 2 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of IndiaThe Court upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including the financial and operational creditor distinction and Sections 12A, 29A and 53, and directed Circuit Benches of the NCLAT.
On this path for: Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Sections 21 and 24, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 12A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
9 August 2019 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of IndiaThe 2018 amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code treating home buyers (allottees) as financial creditors are constitutionally valid; RERA and the Code operate concurrently, the Code prevailing in case of conflict.
On this path for: Section 5(8)(f) and Explanation, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 21(6A)(b), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 25A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
15 November 2019 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar GuptaThe Court set aside the NCLAT's equal redistribution under Essar Steel's resolution plan, holding that distribution is for the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom, and struck down 'mandatorily' in the 330-day limit in Section 12.
On this path for: Section 12, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 30(2)(b) and 30(4), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 31, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
19 January 2021 · 3 judges
Manish Kumar v. Union of IndiaThe Court upheld the 2020 IBC amendments: the threshold of 100 or ten per cent for allottees and certain financial creditors under Section 7, the deemed withdrawal of pending applications, Explanation II to Section 11, and Section 32A.
On this path for: Section 7(1) and provisos, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 11, Explanation II, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 32A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
1 March 2021 · 3 judges
P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.Proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are 'proceedings' barred by the moratorium in Section 14(1)(a) IBC, but they may continue against its directors and persons in charge.
On this path for: Section 14(1)(a), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 32A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
26 March 2021 · 3 judges
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd.The Court set aside the NCLAT order reinstating Cyrus Mistry and restraining Tata Sons, holding that no case of oppressive or prejudicial conduct under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 was made out.
On this path for: Section 241, Companies Act, 2013; Section 242, Companies Act, 2013; Section 2(68), Companies Act, 2013 (private company)
13 April 2021 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.Once the Adjudicating Authority approves a resolution plan under Section 31 IBC, it binds all creditors including governments, and every claim not in the plan, statutory dues included, stands extinguished; the 2019 amendment is clarificatory.
On this path for: Section 31, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 3(10), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 5(20) and (21), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
21 May 2021 · 2 judges
Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of IndiaThe Central Government's notification of 15 November 2019 bringing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code into force for personal guarantors to corporate debtors is valid, and approval of a resolution plan does not by itself discharge a personal guarantor.
On this path for: Section 1(3), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 60, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 179, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
17 July 2026 · 2 judges
Tata Steel Ltd. v. VarshaUnder the approved resolution plan for Bhushan Steel, sub judice claims of operational creditors admitted at Rupee One stood extinguished, so their pending civil suit and arbitrations abated and were dismissed.
On this path for: Section 31, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Test yourself: 170 practice questions on landmark judgments, with explanations.