UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Does Not Give Indebted Creditors Right To Set-Off Against Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has meticulously delineated the scope and application of set-off rights in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The apex court, in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited and Another v. Vijaykumar V. Iyer and Others, addressed an intriguing legal question concerning the right to claim set-off when a Resolution Professional assumes control of a corporate debtor's assets.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna, delivering the judgment, emphasized the uniqueness of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the IBC. He stated, "Unlike the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 or the Companies Act, 2013, IBC in the case of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process does not give the indebted creditors the right to set-off against the corporate debtor." This observation underlines the court's stance on maintaining the distinct nature of the insolvency process as envisaged under the IBC.

The court meticulously differentiated between various types of set-offs - contractual, statutory/legal, equitable, and insolvency set-off - and their relevance to the insolvency process. The judgment clarifies that the IBC, being a complete code in itself, does not inherently accommodate the concept of mutual set-off at the initial stage of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

In a detailed analysis, the Supreme Court held that the principle of pari passu, fundamental to insolvency proceedings, must be preserved. "As set-offs can mitigate against the pari passu principle, they should be allowed when mandated, or can be justified by law," Justice Khanna remarked, highlighting the need to balance creditor rights with the orderly process of insolvency resolution.

The decision is a significant contribution to insolvency jurisprudence in India, providing clarity on the interplay between contractual obligations and the overarching framework of the IBC. It underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to uphold the legislative intent and the sanctity of the insolvency resolution process, ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all stakeholders involved.

Date of Decision: January 03, 2024

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS VIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS

 

Latest Legal News