News Details- (Get Professional Updates on Whatsapp, Msg on
8285393786) More
News
Supreme Court urges company tribunals to quickly clear IBC cases
PrintThe Supreme Court on Monday said “judicial delay” was the main reason for the failure of the insolvency regime in India prior to the 2016 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), as it urged company law tribunals to “strictly adhere” to the timelines under the new law and clear pending resolution plans.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah emphasised that the IBC mandates a 330-day outer limit for conclusion of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).
Company law tribunals must therefore remain mindful that inordinate delays cause commercial uncertainty, degradation in the value of the corporate debtor and makes the insolvency process inefficient and expensive.
“Judicial delay was one of the major reasons for the failure of the insolvency regime that was in effect prior to the IBC. We cannot let the present insolvency regime meet the same fate,” said the bench, pointing out that a parliamentary panel report published last month stated that more than 71% cases have been pending before the tribunals for over 180 days.
“We urge the NCLT (national company law tribunal) and NCLAT (national company law appellate tribunal) to be sensitive to the effect of such delays on the insolvency resolution process and be cognizant that adjournments hamper the efficacy of the judicial process. The NCLT and the NCLAT should endeavour, on a best effort basis, to strictly adhere to the timelines stipulated under the IBC and clear pending resolution plans forthwith,” directed the top court.
Some major reasons for delays, noted the court, were attributable to the national company law appellate tribunaltaking considerable time in admitting CIRPs, multiplicity of litigation and appeals to the NCLAT and the Supreme Court.
“Long delays in approving the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) affect the subsequent implementation of the plan. These delays, if systemic and frequent, will have an undeniable impact on the commercial assessment that the parties undertake during the course of the negotiation,” cautioned the bench.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah emphasised that the IBC mandates a 330-day outer limit for conclusion of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).
Company law tribunals must therefore remain mindful that inordinate delays cause commercial uncertainty, degradation in the value of the corporate debtor and makes the insolvency process inefficient and expensive.
“Judicial delay was one of the major reasons for the failure of the insolvency regime that was in effect prior to the IBC. We cannot let the present insolvency regime meet the same fate,” said the bench, pointing out that a parliamentary panel report published last month stated that more than 71% cases have been pending before the tribunals for over 180 days.
“We urge the NCLT (national company law tribunal) and NCLAT (national company law appellate tribunal) to be sensitive to the effect of such delays on the insolvency resolution process and be cognizant that adjournments hamper the efficacy of the judicial process. The NCLT and the NCLAT should endeavour, on a best effort basis, to strictly adhere to the timelines stipulated under the IBC and clear pending resolution plans forthwith,” directed the top court.
Some major reasons for delays, noted the court, were attributable to the national company law appellate tribunaltaking considerable time in admitting CIRPs, multiplicity of litigation and appeals to the NCLAT and the Supreme Court.
“Long delays in approving the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) affect the subsequent implementation of the plan. These delays, if systemic and frequent, will have an undeniable impact on the commercial assessment that the parties undertake during the course of the negotiation,” cautioned the bench.
Category : Insolvent Professional | Comments : 0 | Hits : 385
Get Free Daily Updates Via e-Mail on Income Tax, Service tax, Excise and Corporate law
Search News
News By Categories More Categories
- Income Tax Dept serves notices to salaried individuals for documentary proof to claim exemptions
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 - Update on allotment of Branches
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 - Update on Allotment of Branches
- Police Atrocities towards CA in Faridabad - Its Time to be Unite
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates 2019
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2022 Updates
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- NFRA Imposes Monetary penalty of Rs 1 Crore on M/s Dhiraj & Dheeraj
- ICAI notifies earlier announced CA exam dates despite pending legal challenge before SC
- NFRA debars Auditors, imposes Rs 50 lakh penalties for lapses in Brightcom, CMIL cases
- GST Important Update - Enhancement in the GST Portal
- NFRA Slaps Rs 5 lakh Penalty on Audit Firm for lapses in Vikas WSP Audit Case
- CBDT extends due date for filing Form 10A/10AB upto 30th June, 2024
- RBI comes out with FEMA regulations for direct listing on international exchange
- RBI directs payment firms to track high-value, fishy transactions during elections
- NCLT orders insolvency proceedings against Subhash Chandra
- Income Tax dept starts drive to dispose of appeals, 0.54 million at last count
- Payment of MCA fees –electronic mode-regarding
- Budget '11-12' Parliament Completes Approval Exercise
- Satyam restrained from operating its accounts
- ICICI a foreign firm, subject to FDI norms: Govt
- Maha expects Rs 15 crore entertainment tax revenue from IPL
- CAG blames PMO for not acting against Kalmadi
- No service tax on visa facilitators: CBEC
- Provision of 15-minutes reading and planning time allowance to the candidates of Chartered Accountants Examinations
- Companies Bill to be taken up in Monsoon Session
- File Service Tax Return in time as Maximum Penalty increased 10 times to Rs. 20000
Comments