Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras 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