CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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