Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad 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