Introduction

Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes between parties without resorting to litigation in courts. Arbitration is usually faster, cheaper, and more confidential than litigation. Arbitration also allows the parties to choose the arbitrators, the rules of procedure, and the applicable law.

One of the leading arbitration institutions in the world is the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). SIAC is a not-for-profit international arbitration organisation based in Singapore, which administers arbitrations under its own rules of arbitration and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules12. SIAC was established on 1 July 1991 and is located at Maxwell Chambers, formerly the Customs House².

SIAC has a reputation for providing high-quality, efficient, and impartial arbitration services. SIAC has handled over 6,000 cases from 147 countries and territories, involving parties from various sectors and industries1. SIAC has a panel of over 500 independent and experienced arbitrators from 46 jurisdictions, who are experts in various fields of law and practice1. SIAC also has a Court of Arbitration, which oversees the case administration and appointment of arbitrators, and a Secretariat, which handles the day-to-day operations of SIAC¹.

Arbitration Clause for SIAC

To refer their disputes to SIAC for arbitration, the parties need to include an arbitration clause in their contract. An arbitration clause is a written agreement between the parties that they will submit any present or future disputes arising out of or in connection with their contract to arbitration, instead of litigation.

SIAC provides model arbitration clauses on its website for the parties to use or adapt. The model clauses vary depending on whether the parties wish to arbitrate under the SIAC Rules or the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and whether they wish to specify the seat (legal place) of arbitration, the number of arbitrators, and the language of arbitration1.

For example, a simple arbitration clause for SIAC Rules arbitration could be:
Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC Rules”) for the time being in force, which rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference in this clause.
The seat of the arbitration shall be [Singapore].*
The Tribunal shall consist of [one or three] arbitrator(s).*
The language of the arbitration shall be [English].*

*The parties may agree on any seat, number of arbitrators, and language of arbitration. If they do not agree, these matters will be determined by SIAC or the Tribunal in accordance with the SIAC Rules.

Invocation of Arbitration under SIAC Arbitration

Clause

To commence an arbitration under SIAC, the party initiating the arbitration (the claimant) must submit a notice of arbitration to SIAC and to the other party (the respondent). The notice of arbitration must include:

• • A request for arbitration;
  • The names and contact details of the parties and their representatives;
  • A reference to the arbitration clause or agreement;
  • A brief description of the contract and the dispute;
  • The relief or remedy sought;
  • The preferred number of arbitrators (if not agreed by the parties);
  • The preferred seat of arbitration (if not agreed by the parties);
  • The preferred language of arbitration (if not agreed by the parties); and
  • A copy of the contract containing the arbitration clause or agreement¹.

The claimant must also pay a non-refundable filing fee to SIAC. The amount of the filing fee depends on whether the arbitration is under the SIAC Rules or the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules¹.

The date on which SIAC receives both the notice of arbitration and the filing fee is deemed to be the date of commencement of the arbitration.

Appointment of Members of Tribunal

The number and method of appointment of arbitrators are determined by the parties’ agreement or by SIAC in accordance with the applicable rules.

Under the SIAC Rules, if the parties have agreed on a sole arbitrator, they may jointly nominate an arbitrator within 14 days from receipt of notice from SIAC. If they fail to do so, SIAC will appoint an arbitrator. If they have agreed on three arbitrators, each party may nominate one arbitrator within 14 days from receipt of notice from SIAC. The two party-nominated arbitrators will then nominate a third arbitrator within 14 days from their confirmation. If any party fails to nominate an arbitrator or if the two party-nominated arbitrators fail to nominate a third arbitrator, SIAC will appoint an arbitrator¹.

Under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, if the parties have agreed on a sole arbitrator, they may jointly nominate an arbitrator within 30 days from receipt of notice from SIAC. If they fail to do so, SIAC will appoint an arbitrator. If they have agreed on three arbitrators, each party may nominate one arbitrator within 30 days from receipt of notice from SIAC. The two party-nominated arbitrators will then nominate a third arbitrator within 30 days from their confirmation. If any party fails to nominate an arbitrator or if the two party-nominated arbitrators fail to nominate a third arbitrator, SIAC will appoint an arbitrator¹.

In both cases, SIAC will appoint an arbitrator from its panel of arbitrators, unless it considers that there are exceptional circumstances that require the appointment of an arbitrator from outside the panel. SIAC will also take into account the parties’ preferences, the nature and circumstances of the dispute, and the nationality, qualifications, and availability of the arbitrators¹.

Rules of Procedure

• The rules of procedure for SIAC arbitration are mainly governed by the parties’ agreement or by the applicable rules. The parties may agree on any procedural matters that are not contrary to the applicable rules or mandatory law. The Tribunal has the power to conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate, subject to the parties’ agreement and the applicable rules.
  Some of the main procedural matters that are regulated by the SIAC Rules or the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules include:
• The exchange of statements of claim and defence, and any counterclaims and replies;
• The production of documents and other evidence;
• The appointment of experts and witnesses;
• The conduct of hearings and written submissions;
• The determination of issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of evidence;
• The application of interim or emergency measures;
• The calculation and allocation of costs; and
• The rendering of awards^{1 3}.

The Tribunal may also adopt any additional rules or guidelines that it considers appropriate for the efficient and fair conduct of the arbitration, such as the SIAC Practice Notes or the International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration.

Conclusion about SIAC Arbitration

SIAC arbitration is a popular and effective method of resolving international commercial disputes. SIAC arbitration offers many advantages to the parties, such as flexibility, neutrality, expertise, efficiency, and finality. To refer their disputes to SIAC arbitration, the parties need to include an arbitration clause in their contract. To commence an arbitration under SIAC, the claimant needs to submit a notice of arbitration and pay a filing fee to SIAC. The appointment of arbitrators is done by the parties or by SIAC in accordance with the applicable rules. The rules of procedure for SIAC arbitration are mainly determined by the parties’ agreement or by the applicable rules. The Tribunal has wide discretion to conduct the arbitration in a manner that ensures a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute.

Learn more: 1. Siac.org.sg 2. En.wikipedia.org 3. Siac.org.sg 4. Bing.com 5. insightsonindia.com

The post SIAC Arbitration: An Overview appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The Gujarat High Court will mark its Diamond Jubilee celebrations. The High Court has completed sixty years of its establishment in May 2020.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will virtually release a commemorative postage stamp on Gujarat High Court on Saturday as part of the institution’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations. An official release issued by the high court’s Registrar said on Friday. The Gujarat High Court has completed sixty years of its establishment on May 1, 2020.
Though the Prime Minister was supposed to personally attend one of the events and release the stamp as part of the Diamond Jubilee, the celebrations were postponed due to the coronavirus outbreak in Gujarat, the press release said. Now, the stamp will be released virtually by PM Modi on Saturday, it said.

“The Prime Minister has kindly consented to grace the function and do the honours of releasing the commemorative postage stamp of Diamond Jubilee of the High Court of Gujarat at 10.30 am on February 6, 2021,” it said. The Prime Minister will also address the gathering via video link.

PM Modi To Unveil Postage Stamp On Gujarat High Court
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will virtually release a commemorative postage stamp on Gujarat High Court

Ahmedabad: Prime Minister Narendra Modi will virtually release a commemorative postage stamp on Gujarat High Court on Saturday as part of the institution’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations. An official release issued by the high court’s Registrar said on Friday. The Gujarat High Court has completed sixty years of its establishment on May 1, 2020.
Though the Prime Minister was supposed to personally attend one of the events and release the stamp as part of the Diamond Jubilee, the celebrations were postponed due to the coronavirus outbreak in Gujarat, the press release said. Now, the stamp will be released virtually by PM Modi on Saturday, it said.

“The Prime Minister has kindly consented to grace the function and do the honours of releasing the commemorative postage stamp of Diamond Jubilee of the High Court of Gujarat at 10.30 am on February 6, 2021,” it said. The Prime Minister will also address the gathering via video link.

Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani and Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, Justice Vikram Nath will also address the gathering via video conference.

Originally Posted here

The post PM Modi to unveil Postage Stamp On Gujarat High Court on its Diamond Jubilee celebrations appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The Gujarat High Court held that imposition of fine on not wearing masks is not acting as a sufficient deterrent among the people and the State Government may consider making violators work at Covid-19 centres.

The division bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Judge JB Pardiwala said this while hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Awtani.

The Gujarat High Court in its order directed the State Government said, people violating social distancing would do at least 4-5 hours non-medical duty at a Covid Care Centre for 5-15 days, as decided by authority, such as cleaning, housekeeping, cooking, helping, serving, preparation of the record, data-keeping, etc.

The post Gujarat High Court directs Govt to send people who don’t wear masks to work in Covid-19 centers appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

List of Online Directory of High Court Advocates (India)

1. Gujarat – By Gujarat High Court Advocates Association. High Court Advocates Directory 

   

2. Kerela – Kerela High Court Directory(KHCAA Directory – Kerela High Court Advocates Association Directory) Click here

   

3. High Court AP (AP HC) (High Court Advocates Directory) Click Here
4. Chennai High Court Advocate List/Madras High Court Advocates List : Click here
5. Bombay High Court Advocates Directory : Click Here
6. Advocate in Allahabad High Court(Allahabad High Court Lawyers Directory): Click Here

We will be updating the list of High Court Advocates Directory as we find more relevant & accurate directories.  If you know any other High Court Directories please connect here

The post High Court Advocates Directory appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) is a perfect platform that oversees and addresses the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) and liquidation proceedings for individuals, firms, corporates and others. It seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy that will provide for resolution of insolvency in a speedy and time bound manner while simultaneously balancing the interest of all the stakeholders.

The ecosystem of the Code is dependent on four pillars namely, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), Information Utilities (IUs), Insolvency Professional Agencies (IPAs) and Insolvency Professionals (IPs).

This book attempts to cover the role of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The role of an IRP commences from the day he/she is appointed as such by an order of the Adjudicating Authority (within fourteen days from the insolvency commencement date) and ends on the thirtieth day from the date of his appointment. During the tenure of thirty days, the IRP is provided with tasks of great responsibility and criticality that has the potential to hugely impact the implementation and success of the Code.

The IRP shall have the power of management of the corporate debtor and shall take control of the assets of the corporate debtor. The powers of the Board of Directors of the corporate debtor shall stand suspended. The IRP shall make a public announcement pertaining to his appointment and invites creditors for submission of proof of claims. On receipt of claims from various creditors, he is also entrusted with the task of verification of the claims, on the basis of which, he prepares the list of creditors. Once the list of creditors is prepared, the IRP shall constitute the Committee of Creditors (“Committee”) and file a report in this behalf with the Adjudicating Authority. Subsequently, the first meeting of the Committee is to be convened.

With the conclusion of the first meeting of the Committee, the role of the IRP also comes to an end. At the first meeting of the Committee, the role of the IRP comes to an end either by change of his role into a resolution professional, subject to approval of his appointment by a majority of seventy five percent of the voting share of the financial creditors in the Committee or by termination of his role as an IRP and appointment of another resolution professional, where his appointment is not approved by the Committee.

It is pertinent to note the importance of the IRPs under this Code, who are endowed with mammoth and pivotal tasks that needs to be undertaken within a prescribed time frame. It is their efficiency and management that provides the Code with the impetus to fulfil its objective of resolving insolvency and bankruptcy cases in a speedy and time bound manner.

The post Introduction – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

NCLT IBC Amendment Bill: Credit Hierarchy Restored, Resolution Plans And Time Limit Binding

The government has moved to put to rest several hurdles impeding corporate insolvencies in India via an amendment to the law. The actual text of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2019, is finally in the public domain and will soon seek passage in Parliament.

Whilst the salient features of the cabinet approval had been released last week, the Bill, in public domain, removes any fuzziness that commentators had on the interpretation of the eight amendments.

‘Complex’ Plans Can Be Part Of Resolution

The amendment to section 5(26) – which defines a resolution plan- now clarifies that a plan may include provisions for restructuring including by way of merger, amalgamation and merger to be entertained by NCLT. Complex plans can be part of the insolvency process and the plan can deal with one or more companies as transferee companies in the course of insolvency proceedings for reviving the corporate debtor as a going concern.

Addressing Delays In Admission

IBC requires the Adjudicating Authority, mostly the National Company Law Tribunal, to determine the existence of a default within 14 days when an application initiating the insolvency process is made.

The proposed amendment to this provision introduces judicial discipline to say if such a determination hasn’t been made, the NCLT has to pass an order within 14 days from the insolvency commencement date to record the reasons in writing for such delay in determination. This will address the significant delays in listing of insolvency applications by the NCLT. In the past, some applications for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process have not been listed for admission for periods exceeding four months before some of the appropriate tribunals.

Speedier Disposal

Presently, the insolvency process has be to completed within 180 days, extendable up to 90 days under section 12(3). Through jurisprudence, courts have laid down that the time spent in litigation must be excluded from this 270-day period.

The amendment Bill has proposed that the insolvency process has to be completed mandatory within 330 days from the insolvency commencement date, including an extension of the period granted under section 12(3) and the time taken in legal proceedings in relation to such resolution process of the corporate debtor. If the insolvency process has been pending and has not been completed within 330 days, then as a transitory extension of the resolution process, pending matters shall be completed within 90 days from the date of commencement of the IBC Amendment 2019.

The use of the word “mandatory” and “shall be completed” are a clear indication that the amendments to IBC are not directory in nature but constitute a mandatory compulsory indication to finish the insolvency process in a specified timeline of 330 days, without exception.

Cases where over two years have been taken in dealing with the resolution process should be conclusively determined in the extra time of 90 days from the commencement of the amendments.

Home-buyers’ Vote

In order to set right the impasse for conducting voting for a large number of home buyers that share the status of financial creditors, it is made expressly clear that the authorized representative shall cast his vote on behalf of all financial creditors represented by him, with the decision taken by a vote of more than 50 percent of the voting share of the financial creditors who have cast their vote. This change is notwithstanding the provisions of Section 25A(3).

It is clarified that for withdrawal of the application under section 12A, the authorised representative will, however, cast the vote as originally provided i.e. act in the interest of the home buyers and as per prior instructions.

Credit Hierarchy Restored

Section 30(2)(b) specifies that at the resolution plan stage, payment to operational creditors shall not be less than the amount to be paid to them in the event of liquidation of the corporate debtor. At the liquidation stage, the order of payments is specified in section 53(1) – insolvency process costs, dues of workmen, secured creditors, unsecured creditors, statutory dues and then operational creditors.

The amended section 30(2)(b) is substituted to specify that payments to operational creditors for their debt would be in a manner specified by the IBBI but shall not be less than:

(i) the amount to be paid to such creditors in the event of liquidation of the corporate debtor or
(ii) the amount that would have been paid to such creditors if the distribution was done based on the priority under Section 53(1), whichever is higher.

It is specified that payments made to operational creditors shall be fair and equitable. In my opinion, it would not be permissible for any judicial interpretation to distort the priority different from what’s specified under section 53(1) and the extent and value of such payment shall also be determined based on the hierarchy specified under this section.

Further, the amendment provides that payments to dissenting financial creditors shall be decided as per regulations of the IBBI, but it shall not be less than the amount due to them in accordance with hierarchy specified at the liquidation stage.

As a clarification, it is provided that the amended section 30(2)(b) would be applicable to cases

where the resolution plan has not been approved or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority or
where an appeal has been preferred to the appellate authority or the Supreme Court or where such appeal is not time barred under any provision of law for the time being in force or
where a legal proceeding has been initiated in any court against the decision of the Adjudicatory Authority in respect of a resolution plan.
This clarifies that the amendment to Section 30 is retrospective for pending proceedings in relation to the resolution plan, as above.

Additionally, it is also clarified that the manner of distribution must take into account the order of priority amongst creditors, including the priority and value of the security interest of a secured creditor. This change makes it beyond doubt that it is not open for the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority or any court to change either the priority or the value of the security interest of a secured creditor contrary to the principles of Section 53(1) of the IBC.

Making Resolution Plans before NCLT Binding

The proposed amendments resolve the issue of the central or state government or a local authority raising demands post approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. It makes clear that the central or state government or a local authority – to whom statutory dues are owed – are also bound by the resolution plan as stakeholders.

If such a resolution plan has provided for cancellation of operational creditors debts or diminished taxes, which qualify as operational debts, or amounts payable to local authorities as royalty or fees are also bound by the resolution plan as approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the IBC.

Creditors’ Committee Empowered

The Bill provides that the Committee of Creditors may take the decision to liquidate the corporate debtor any time after the CoC is constituted and before the confirmation of the resolution plan, including at any time before the preparation of the information memorandum. Hence, if 66 percent of the CoC decides to liquidate the corporate debtor, it can abort an endless and futile procedure of insolvency when it is no longer justifiable to keep it going.

All in all, these eight amendments shall become effective from the coming into force of the IBC Amending Act from such date, as the Central Government by notification may appoint.

These significant changes are made to ensure that insolvency proceedings are mandatory time bound and are not judicially extendable for more than once for a period of 90 days after the expiry of the 180 days available for resolution. A further time period of 60 days has been given to account for delays as a result of legal proceedings in relation to such resolution process.

The ability of the Appropriate Authority or the Appellate Authority or the courts to interpret and state that these amendments made by the legislature are directory in nature, has been plugged. The legislative intent is that the timelines are mandatory in nature. Even pending proceedings or resolution plan, which have exceeded 330 days by now, have merely 90 days extra from the commencement date of the IBC Amendment 2019 to finalize matters or to proceed to liquidation.

With these amendments and clarifications, the process of speedy adjudication and decision making should now be finally settled. No judicial interpretation or Latin maxim should be further available to postpone the completion of the insolvency process or prevent proceedings to liquidate the corporate debtor (upon failure of the insolvency process) as determined by the requisite majority of the CoC.

The post NCLT – IBC Amendment Bill : Credit Hierarchy Restored, Resolution Plans And Time Limit Binding appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

FLIPKART ISSUE PRESENTED BEFORE NCLT

A single judge bench of the Bengaluru National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ordered on  October 24, a Corporate Insolvency Process against Walmart controlled online retailer Flipkart for non-payment of the Rs 26.95 crore of dues to Mumbai based LED TV supplier CloudWalker Streaming Technologies Private Ltd after a petition by the Mumbai based company.

Cloud Walker Streaming Technologies Pvt. and Flipkart entered into an agreement for supply of LED TVs in 2016. As per the petition, Flipkart showed keen interest in selling the products of the supplier for their superior technology, features and other advantages over other suppliers of the product. Cloud Walker claimed that after placing purchase orders for LED TVs, Flipkart initially delayed accepting the order, citing the lack of a warehouse as a reason. Cloud Walker submitted that they had agreed to store the goods in their own warehouse temporarily, but Flipkart never collected the delivery, after making several excuses. Furthermore, Cloud Walker has also said that Flipkart ‘coerced’ them into selling the products at a discounted price, knowing that the order had been warehoused for Flipkart, for a while. In order to avoid any more losses and due to facing liquidity crunch, Cloud Walker agreed to offer a discount, but Flipkart still failed to collect delivery and make payment for over 70% of the stock ordered. It is Cloud Walker’s grievance that the supplier was forced to unload the collected goods at a heavily marked down price, as the goods had been in the warehouse for over 2 months. As a result of non-payment of balance dues, the supplier Cloud Walker issued a demand notice under section 8 of the IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) but the Corporate Debtor (CD) Flipkart did not respond to the statutory notice, as is necessitated by the provisions of the IBC.

Flipkart challenged the petition on the ground of having made a payment of over Rs. 85.57 cr. towards the invoices raised against by Cloud Walker, as against the total Purchase Order (PO) amounting to Rs 103.62 cr. Flipkart also contended that there were huge disparities in the amount claimed by the Supplier, by way of invoices, and before these disputes are adjudicated upon by a competent civil court, the insolvency proceedings are a way of misusing the law. In addition, Flipkart submitted that an amount of Rs. 42.96 cr. payable to Cloud Walker had been withheld by them, due to deficiency in services.

In an order uploaded on the NCLT website on 5th November the single judge bench of Rajeswara Rao Vittanala said that Flipkart has committed default by the non-payment of dues despite repeated requests from CloudWalker. Vittanala appointed Deepak Saruparia as the resolution professional in the case. The NCLT Bench also said that Flipkart had failed to raise a dispute regarding deficiency of services on the part of Cloud Walker, before the insolvency petition was preferred by the Supplier, nor did it respond to the statutory demand notice issued under section 8. It was also observed that Flipkart had failed to notify the Supplier Cloud Walker of any substantive pending dispute, suit or arbitral proceedings.

Flipkart followed up with a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court and a day later obtained a stay on the NCLT order.

In its next hearing held on October 31, the Karnataka HC ordered continuation of the stay. The date of the next hearing has not been set yet. “In view of the above, it is clarified that as on date, Flipkart is not undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process and is continuing its operations on a going concern basis under its present management,” the company said in an email statement.

­The matter pertains to an agreement between CloudWalker and Flipkart that dates back to December 2016. CloudWalker, which sells TV under Cloud TV brand, had alleged that Flipkart had signed the agreement to purchase stock worth Rs 103.62 crore but only bought goods worth Rs 85.57 crore, and that too after many delays.

Read more about what is corporate insolvency process?

The post Flipakart ordered for corporate insolvency process by NCLT, Flipkart gets stay from High Court appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Here’s a stage-wise process for Corporate Insolvency Resolution process – NCLT:-

1. In case a corporate debtor makes a default in repayment of dues of the creditors, the financial creditor/s, an operational creditor or a corporate debtor through Corporate applicant or any authorised member, a person who has the controlling capacity over the financial affairs of the corporate debtor has the power to start the insolvency resolution process. In order to initiate the resolution process, an application has to be made to National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under (Section 10, IBC, 2016 in case of Corporate Debtor, Section 7 and 9 of IBC, 2016 in case of Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors).
2. A ten days demand notice under (Section 8(2) of IBC, 2016 in case of Operational Creditors) has to be given to the corporate debtor by the Operational Creditors before he approaches the NCLT under Section 9 of IBC, 2016). However, an operational creditor can directly approach the NCLT if the corporate debtor does not repay the outstanding dues or fails to show any existing difference. (Kindly refer to Section 8: Insolvency resolution by operational creditor. & Section 9: Application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor.)
3. The new code states that the insolvency process of a Corporate Debtor must be concluded within 180 days from the date of initiation in the NCLT (Section 12, IBC of 2016). The claims of the Creditors shall be frozen for a period of six months on admission of application by NCLT. During this time, the NCLT shall listen to the options to revive and decide the future course of action. It is further clarified that unless a resolution plan is made or liquidation process is initiated, no legal claim shall be sought against the corporate debtor in any other forum or Court (Section 14 of IBC, 2016).
4. When the application for insolvency is accepted under Section 7/9/10 of IBC, 2016 the NCLT within fourteen days appoints an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) on receiving a confirmation from Board of Insolvency and Bankruptcy. The appointed IP then takes up the responsibility of the debtor’s properties and functioning. He also collects all the information that is relevant with regard to the financial condition of the debtor from information utilities. IP is appointed for a term of thirty days only within which he does all the necessary scrutinization (Section 18, IBC, 2016).
5. The next step is to make a public announcement about the commencement of corporate insolvency process so that claims from any other creditors can also come forward, if any. A creditor’s committee is constituted by the IRP post receiving any claims by public announcement (Section 13 of IBC, 2016). In the event any financial creditor is a related party of the defaulting debtor, such a creditor will not have the right to represent, participate or vote in the committee of creditors so constituted by the IP. In order to be a part of the Creditor’s Committee, the average dues of the operational creditors must be at least ten percent of the debt. The Committee of Creditors shall first seven days of its incorporation decide through seventy five percent votes whether the interim IRP should be used as a Resolution Professional or should be replaced with someone else.
6. After the Committee finalizes the Resolution Professional he is appointed by the NCLT (Section 16 of IBC, 2016). The Resolution Professional so appointed can be replaced anytime by the Creditor’s Committee with a majority of seventy five percent votes. In the interim, i.e. till the appointed of any new Resolution Professional, the Creditor’s Committee can take decisions with regard to insolvency resolution by seventy five percent majority voting.
7. In the event majority (75%) of the financial creditors are of the view that the case is very complex and more time extension is required, the NCLT may grant a one-time extension of up to a maximum of 90 days over and above the pre decided tenure of 180 days. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Resolution Professional to manage and conduct the corporate insolvency resolution procedure during such a term (Section 18 of IBC, 2016).
8. To enable the resolution applicant for preparing a resolution plan, the Resolution Professional shall compile a statistics note. A resolution applicant can be defined as an individual who has the duty and responsibility to submit a resolution plan to the Resolution Professional. The Creditor’s Committee further receives the plan from the Resolution Professional for its approval.
9. On the resolution being approved, the next step by the Creditor’s Committee is to come up with options on restructuring which can be either coming up with a modified repayment plan or to simply liquidate the properties of the company in order to recover dues. If the Creditor’s Committee fails to take any binding decision with regard to the repayment by the debtor, the debtor’s assets are liquidated in order to pay back the creditors. If there is a plan prepared for resolution, the same shall be sent to NCLT for approval and implementation.

Read More here : Introduction – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – NCLT

The post What is Corporate Insolvency Resolution process? – NCLT appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

In a very positive development for the Students aspiring to take admission in Professional Medical Courses in the State of Gujarat, who had challenged the legality and validity of the Rule 4(3) of Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses ) Rules, 2017, the Special Civil Applications were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, the Government of Gujarat has amended the rules and exempted the present academic year 2019-20, from the applicability of the said rule.

The rules reads as below:

4. Eligibility for Admission

A candidate who desires admission shall  

(1) **

(2)**

(3) have passed the 10th and 12th qualifying examination with “B-Group” and “AB-group” from

(i)     the Gujarat Board,

(ii) the Central Board of Secondary Education provided that the school in which the candidate has studied, is located in the State of Gujarat

(iii) the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations Board, New Delhi provided that the school in which the candidate has studied, is located in the State of Gujarat.

The bone of Contention was the Rule 4(3)(ii), whereby the rules made it mandatory for the students, aspiring to get admissions to Professional Medical Educational Courses in the colleges situated in State of Gujarat, to have passed 10th Standard examination either from Schools affiliated to Gujarat Board or from Schools situated in State of Gujarat and affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. 

However, the Government of Gujarat had to reconsider its stand after the petitions were filed in the High Court of Gujarat. The new Rules (amended), provides the exemption for the students of this Academic Year 2019-20;

The post State of Gujarat – Std 10 not mandatory for NEET Admission appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The post Indian Laws Relating To Maintenance appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.