In a recent case of M/S Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs M/S Aptech Ltd, Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2023, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to proceedings for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”). This ruling signifies that if claims exceed the time …
In the case of Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. vs Samtel Display Systems Ltd., [O.M.P. 476/2012 & IA No. 5379/2023] the Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta held that an arbitral award marked by inherent inconsistencies and internal contradictions is deemed as perverse and patently illegal under Section 34 of the …
Introduction Following the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd, which extensively discussed the ‘Group of Companies’ doctrine, the Delhi High Court, in the matter of Vingro Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitya Shree Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Vingro Case”), has offered insights into the application of this …
Can a Director of a Disputing Company be Made Party to an Arbitration Proceeding? Read More »
Introduction On January 31, 2024, Paytm, a prominent player in India’s fintech sector, was embroiled in a regulatory crisis when the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) imposed restrictions, effectively halting Paytm Payments Bank from providing core services. The aftermath was swift and severe, with Paytm’s stocks plummeting by 36% within two days, resulting in a …
Introduction: Introduction: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi, in the case of Vishram Narayan Panchpor, Resolution Professional (RP) of Blue Frog Media Pvt. Ltd. vs Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Blue Frog Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson along with Technical Members Mr. Barun Mitra and …
NCLAT Delhi: Not All Promoters Are Ineligible To Submit a Resolution Plan Read More »
While deciding on a plea on whether there is a possibility of interference with arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that any attempt to “modify an award” during the adjudication of Sections 34 and 37 petitions is not permitted under the Act. …
Going by a recent order of the NCLT Chennai bench, in the case of Ashok Magnetics Limited, this critical aspect of the code is likely to be reviewed Since its inception, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been hailed as a monumental reform that would help tackle the problem of bad loans plaguing the …
How NCLT Chennai’s order may restrain the freedom of creditors’ panel Read More »
Under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in admitting a petition by a financial creditor is concerned only with the existence of a default of a financial debt, not whether such default is admitted or disputed by the debtor. The Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries v ICICI …
The government recognised the economic impact of covid-19 on businesses by enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. The ordinance, among other measures, inserted section 10A into the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which suspends for six months the operation of sections 7, 9 and 10, the sections triggering insolvency proceedings, in respect …
Guarantors may be vulnerable to pandemic default risks Read More »
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was conceived as a solution to the growing problem of non-performing assets. Together with the Reserve Bank of India’s framework for the resolution of stressed assets, the IBC is to be used to resolve viable businesses in a timely fashion. Banks and financial institutions were given precedence in …
Decree holders not financial creditors under IBC Read More »
Subscribe to our blogs and get notified when we post about the latest updates.
© 2026 CHAMBERS OF V. ANUSH RAAJAN
