An unsettling precedent under IBC

The Supreme Court order is not aligned with the policy and legislative intent underlying the IBC

Gausia ShaikhBhargavi Zaveri

In a widely reported order, the Supreme Court allowed a debtor to settle a claim with a creditor after the collective resolution process was triggered under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The short story of the litigation leading up to the Supreme Court order is as follows. In June 2017, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the adjudicating tribunal under the IBC, had admitted an application for triggering the IBC against a debtor. Thereafter, the debtor and the creditor who had applied for triggering the IBC, settled their claim. The debtor appealed to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to set aside the order of the NCLT that triggered the IBC. At the NCLAT, both the debtor and the creditor acknowledged that their claim had been settled.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal on two grounds. One, that after the IBC was triggered, there was no provision in the IBC to allow the creditor to withdraw her application for triggering it o
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of or the Business Standard newspaper

Also Read

NCLT appoints IPR for insolvency of Nagarjuna Oil Corporation

'NCLT, insolvency infra won't suffice to handle RBI's move to curb NPAs'

A good start

Energy sees some big-ticket filings under new insolvency law

Gujarat HC stays insolvency proceedings against Essar Steel

Factional infighting sharpens in China

A tale of two power zones

Protectionism will not protect jobs anywhere

Young, unemployed and not looking for jobs spells trouble for the economy

Big tech firms and political risk

First Published: Aug 08 2017 | 10:42 PM IST

Explore News

To read the full story, subscribe to BS Premium now, at just Rs 249/ month.

Key stories on are available only to BS Premium subscribers. Already a BS Premium subscriber?LOGIN NOW

Register to