From pioneering decisions on the impact of arbitration on non-signatories to influencing the grounds for setting aside arbitral awards, our Firm is at the forefront of navigating complex and high-stakes arbitration disputes across various sectors.
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment reshaping the landscape of resolution proceedings. The ruling established that any creditor, including governmental bodies at various levels, is legally bound by an approved Resolution Plan. This means that once the adjudicating authority sanctions a plan under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, creditors cannot initiate separate recovery proceedings for dues not included in the approved plan. The Judgment clarifies and solidifies the authority of Resolution Plans, ensuring a streamlined process and preventing creditors from circumventing approved resolutions. By affirming the binding nature of Resolution Plans on all creditors, irrespective of their status or affiliation, the decision sets a precedent for clarity and uniformity in insolvency proceedings. This ruling promotes the integrity and effectiveness of the resolution process, safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders involved in corporate insolvency resolution.
We successfully represented Ultratech Cement Limited in NCLAT, setting a precedent for Resolution Plans to maximize asset value, promote entrepreneurship, and balance stakeholder interests. Supreme Court upheld NCLAT's decision, ending discrimination among creditors.
We represented Deccan Value before the Supreme Court in a case wherein the Court held that a resolution applicant cannot withdraw the Resolution Plan once the Committee of Creditors approves it.
The case revolves around the authority of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to negotiate with resolution applicants after the Challenge Mechanism phase. Initially, NCLT ruled in favor of Torrent Investments, prohibiting a second challenge mechanism after completion. However, NCLAT overturned this decision, allowing further negotiation to maximize the corporate debtor's value. Representing IIHL (Hinduja Group), the Firm contested this ruling. The matter now awaits adjudication in the Supreme Court, underscoring the evolving dynamics of resolution processes in corporate insolvency.
The Firm is actively engaged in a series of appeals challenging SEBI's stance that regulatory dues don't fall under the definition of 'debt' within the IBC framework. The outcome has significant ramifications, as accepting this argument would hinder corporate debtors from effectively resolving their financial obligations. It would leave regulatory dues imposed by SEBI, RBI, and other bodies unresolved within the Resolution Plan, thus hindering a fresh start.
While Suraksha Realty's case, tied to Jaypee Infratech Ltd., awaited Supreme Court deliberation, a landmark decision was passed recognizing government authorities holding land charges as secured creditors in resolution plans. The ruling had significant implications for resolution proceedings as it affected resolution plans that don't account for these creditors' dues. This gave rise to an unforeseen hurdle in our case as the Income Tax Department demanded Rs. 33,000 crores in revenue subsidy, posing a critical legal question: whether this demand crystallized pre-approval, impacting the fate of 30,000 homebuyers awaiting resolution since 2010.
Successfully represented Ultratech Cement Limited in NCLAT, setting a precedent for Resolution Plans to maximize asset value, promote entrepreneurship, and balance stakeholder interests. Supreme Court upheld NCLAT's decision, ending discrimination among creditors.
We represented Adani Properties Private Limited in challenges against its Resolution Plan for NRC Limited. Notably, the Supreme Court upheld NCLAT's stance on amended CIRP regulations.
We advocating for Personal Guarantors' constitutional rights by challenging various Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provisions before the Supreme Court.
We are challenging NCLAT's order initiating insolvency proceedings for only one of Supertech Ltd.'s housing projects before the Supreme Court. The Firm is advocating against the directive for construction under IRP supervision, contrary to IBC provisions.
We represented Monnet Ispat before the Supreme Court in an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Delhi High Court's Judgment that income tax dues, being like Crown debts, do not take precedence over secured creditors, who are private persons. The Supreme Court held that, as per Section 238 of IBC, the Code would override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income Tax Act.
