7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

Hi, NLU Nagpur Logout

BOOKMARKS TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES COLUMNS INTERVIEWS


FOREIGN/INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT RTI KNOW THE LAW VIDEOS SPONSORED

ROUND UPS

LAW SCHOOL CORNER JOB UPDATES BOOK REVIEWS EVENTS CORNER LAWYERS & LAW
FIRMS CARTOONS SC JUDGMENTS लाइव लॉ हिंदी


Home / Columns / Insolvency Law in...

COLUMNS

Insolvency Law in Review – June 2021

Siddharth Sunil , Karan Sangani & Soham Chakraborty 29 July 2021 6:50 PM

SHARE THIS -

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 1/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

A round-up of significant rulings on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016 in the month of June.

The enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has had

significant ramifications on the corporate insolvency landscape. Over time, the Code

has witnessed a manifold increase in litigation, and consequently in the number of

decisions. This has made it difficult for insolvency practitioners to stay updated with

developments in the field. This column fills this gap by providing brief summaries of

latest decisions from the various fora dealing with Insolvency Law.

Also Read - The Larger Issue Of Copyright Claims In Film Industry

These case summaries are not an exhaustive review of the cases under the Code; only

significant rulings on the Code in the month of June, 2021 have been summarized.

However, this does not negate the possibility of some important decisions being

missed out on account of human error. Further, since the purpose of this endeavor is

to keep practitioners abreast of relevant developments, the decisions are summarized

and not comprehensively analyzed.

Also Read - IBC - The Journey So Far – Part I

1. HIGH COURTS

In Gouri Prasad Goenka v. State Bank of India, the Calcutta High Court held that the

moratorium envisaged under S. 14 of the Code creates no hindrance to a wilful

defaulter declaration proceeding. This pertains to the dissemination of credit

information related to the wilful defaulters for cautioning the banks and financial

institutions so as to ensure that further bank finance is not made available to them

and not for the recovery of the debts or assets of the corporate debtor, which could

hamper the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The High Court further
https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 2/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

noted that an act of wilful default, if committed by a promoter/whole-time

director/guarantor of the corporate debtor, who was in charge at the relevant period, is

not obliterated automatically by the filing of an application under S. 7 of the Code, and

the declaration of a whole-time director/promoter/guarantor as a wilful defaulter

cannot adversely affect the resolution process in any manner whatsoever.

Also Read - Requirement For A Stronger Regulatory Regime

In East India Enterprise Through Proprietor Rajeshbhai Bholabhai Ramani v. Ministry

of Finance Department of Revenue Through the Director, the Gujarat High Court held
that the statutory amounts due from the corporate debtor in respect of the vehicles,

which were sold by the liquidator corporate debtor, cannot be recovered in terms of

the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder. It can

only be recovered under the provisions of the Code, i.e., the waterfall mechanism

under Section 53 of the Code.

Also Read - In Praise Of The CLAT Consortium: A Visually Challenged Candidates

Lens

2. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALS

In Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal and Others v. Mr. Devendra P. Jain, the National

Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi held that the government

notification dated June 1, 2020, concerning the changes to the classification of micro,

small and medium enterprises (MSME) under the Micro, Small and Medium

Enterprises Development Act, 2006, will be applicable to the corporate debtors,

whose liquidation process was still pending under the Code. The NCLAT, New Delhi,

while reiterating that the main objective of the Code is to resolve the insolvency and

that the liquidation of the corporate debtor is only a last resort, set aside the order of

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 3/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

the adjudicating authority which had found the notification inapplicable to the

corporate debtor since it came into effect at a later date on July 1, 2020.

In Jayanta Banerjee v. Shashi Agarwal Liquidator of INCAB Industries Ltd and

Another., the NCLAT, New Delhi held that the word 'collation' under S. 21(1) of the
Code means verification of the claims of the creditors, or in other words, the

comparison of a copy with its original in order to verify its correctness. The NCLAT,

New Delhi held that a meeting of the committee of the creditors (CoC) cannot be held

without verification and the admission of the claims of the creditors and followed by

the assignment of voting shares to such creditors. Further, the NCLAT, New Delhi held

that the exercise of the commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be used as a pretext

for validating the decisions taken by the CoC, whose very formation has been found to

be against the provisions of the Code.

In Vivekanand Jha v. Punjab National Bank and Another, the NCLAT, New Delhi held

that an offer for a one-time settlement by the corporate debtor in case of a debt which

is due and has been defaulted upon, will not result in the shifting of the date of default

for the calculation of the limitation period. The NCLAT, New Delhi instead held that

such offers for one-time settlements will act as an acknowledgement of the debt due

under S. 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby, resulting in a fresh start of the

limitation period from the date of such acknowledgement.

In Hytone Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. Satabadi Investment Consultants, the NCLAT, New

Delhi held that even an application that is otherwise compliant with the requirements

of S. 7 of the Code can be dismissed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT),

under S. 65 of the Code, if the said application is found to be filed collusively.

In The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax v. Mr. V. Shanker and Others, the

NCLAT, New Delhi, while observing that delays in the CIRP affect the maximisation of

the value, held that a mere letter addressed to the NCLT for the purposes of

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 4/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

condonation of delay in the submission of a claim cannot be said to fulfil the

requirements of Part III of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, S. 60 of

the Code, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules,

2016, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Insolvency Resolution

Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

In Earth Gracia Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Earth Infrastructure Ltd., the NCLAT, New Delhi,

while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Spade Financial Services Ltd. & Others., held that a sham/round-tripped transaction
will not classify as a 'financial debt' for the purpose of the Code.

In Dwarkadhish Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. Pankaj Joshi, Resolution Professional of

KGS Sugar & Infra & Another, the NCLAT, New Delhi upheld the decision of the NCLT,
Mumbai setting aside the decision of the CoC to accept the expression of interest

(EoI) of a resolution applicant after the due date, on the grounds that the CoC did not

assign any reasons for revisiting its earlier decision of rejecting the EoI of the

resolution applicant. The NCLAT, New Delhi held that the CoC, in the shelter of

maximisation of the value of the assets, cannot be permitted to take any decision at

any point of time in the name of commercial wisdom. The court distinguished the

case at hand from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalpraj Dharamshi

v. Kotak Investment Advisors, by stating that in the case of Kalpraj. the actions of RP,
including the acceptance of the resolution plan after the due date had been

consciously approved by the CoC.

In M/s. Manipal Media Network Limited v. M/s. Vishwakshara Media Private Limited,

the NCLAT, New Delhi, on the issue of whether the appellant can invoke the provisions

of the Code if the underlying agreement provides for arbitration under the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that it is not for the Adjudicating Authority to direct

the parties to go for arbitration if the matter was not referred to arbitration by either of

the parties.
https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 5/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

3. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALS

In Pratiksh Pramod Rai v. Mylaw Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd., the NCLT, Mumbai

refused to admit a company into CIRP on the grounds that while the company had

time and again tried to settle the dues owed to the operational creditor, it was the

operational creditor which refused to enter into any settlement. The NCLT, Mumbai

held that the Code cannot be used as a recovery mechanism and is only for the

purpose of insolvency resolution. With no record of the company being financially

unsound and unable to repay its debts, the NCLT, Mumbai dismissed the petition of

the operational creditor.

In Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Chemstar Organics (India)

Limited, the NCLT, Mumbai, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Jignesh
Shah v. Union of India, held that the filing of the recovery proceedings within the period
of limitation does not result in the extension of the period of limitation for the

proceedings under the Code. Further, the NCLT, Mumbai, following S. 34 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, held that in the absence of any supporting evidence, mere entries

in the books of accounts of the petitioner will not be enough to prove debt due to the

creditor.

In M/S Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited v. M/S Manoharamma Hotel

Investments Pvt. Ltd., the NCLT, Chennai, following the decisions of the NCLAT, New
Delhi in State Bank of India v. Athena Energy Ventures Private Limited and Edelweiss

Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Sachet Infrastructure Ltd., held that the CIRP
can be simultaneously initiated against two corporate guarantors or against the

principal borrower and the corporate guarantor under the Code. Further, the NCLT,

Chennai, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank

of India & Another, held that the limitation period for the right to initiate action against

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 6/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

the guarantor will also get extended when the corporate debtor acknowledges its

liability to pay the outstanding dues before the expiry of the period of limitation.

However, in this case, due to the failure to mention the date of default and the

absence of any averments by the financial creditor regarding the extension of the

period of limitation, the NCLT, Chennai found the debt to be time barred.

In Mr. Srinivas Manthena and Anr. v. M/s Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd., the NCLT,

Hyderabad relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Kumar v. Union

of India and Others, to hold that an application filed by a single allottee prior to the
amendment of the third proviso to S. 7(1) of the Code shall continue to be

maintainable even after the said amendment, and that allottees in the same project

against the same corporate debtor could pursue their applications under the Code

jointly.

In Jose Pradeep v. CA, Jasin Jose and Others., the NCLT, Kochi, while relying on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Rahul Jain v. Rave Scans Pvt. Ltd. and the NCLAT,

New Delhi in QVC Exports Ltd. v. United Tradeco FZC, held that there can be no

modification to the terms of a resolution plan that has been approved by the NCLT.

In Goodwood Products v. Kitply Industries Ltd., the NCLT, Guwahati followed the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v.

Satish Kumar Gupta and Others and Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. through
the Authorized Signatory v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. through the
Director and Others, to hold that once the resolution plan is approved by the NCLT in
respect of the corporate debtor, it becomes binding on all stakeholders and that the

claims not dealt with shall stand extinguished.

In Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. V. Mahesh, Liquidator, M/s. Nagarjuna Oil

Corporation Limited, the NCLT, Chennai dismissed the application filed by an

operational creditor against the decision of the liquidator of the corporate debtor

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 7/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

rejecting the submission of the claim of the operational creditor in its entirety, on the

grounds that the scheme in relation to the corporate debtor under S. 230 of the

Companies Act, 2013 read with the attendant provisions of the Code had already been

approved by the NCLT, Chennai. The NCLT, Chennai, while relying on the decision of the

Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Limited v. Satish Kumar

Gupta & Others, noted that the successful scheme proponent cannot be suddenly
faced with an undecided claim.

In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. S. Rajendran, Liquidator of M/s.

Krishna Industrial Corporation Limited, the NCLT, Chennai held that given the NCLT is
constituted by virtue of and in terms of the provisions of a statute and not under the

Indian Constitution, the NCLT does not have the powers to strike down any provisions

of the Code nor the rules and regulations framed thereunder. However, the NCLT,

Chennai noted that the NCLT will not be detracted from going into the issue of any

inconsistency prevalent between the Code and the rules and regulations framed

thereunder for the limited purposes of its interpretation. In this context, the NCLT,

Chennai, rejected the contention of the applicant here to strike down Regulation 21A

of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (Liquidation Regulations), which,

inter alia, requires a secured creditor, who has opted to realise the security interest on
its own, to contribute to the liquidation costs. However, the NCLT, Chennai, while

harmoniously construing Ss. 52 and 53 the Code with Regulation 21A of the

Liquidation Regulations, held that a secured creditor opting to realise the security

interest on its own, has to contribute to the liquidation costs in proportion to the debts

owed to it, on the grounds that the secured creditor opting to realise the security

interest on its own, is required to take the assistance of the liquidator in case of a

surplus arising out of the appropriation in order to have the surplus included in the

liquidation estate as well as in case of a deficit arising out of the appropriation in

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 8/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

order to realise the balance amount from the liquidation estate in terms of Ss. 52 and

53 of the Code.

In M/s. Ostberg India Private Limited v. M/s. Udeshtech Equipments & Engineering

Private Limited, the NCLT, Chennai held that the failure on the part of the corporate
debtor in relation to non-adherence to the time schedule stipulated in the joint

memorandum of compromise entered into between the parties, based on which the

Adjudicating Authority was induced to dispose of the petition filed earlier, proved that

the corporate debtor had committed default in the payment of the amount due to the

operational creditor and as such the adjudicating authority was left with no option

rather than to initiate the CIRP of the corporate debtor.

In M/s. State Bank of India v. Mr. Subrata M. Maity, the NCLT, Chennai held that there

is no provision under the Code, which provides for any member of the CoC to vote in

favour of a resolution plan "under protest". The NCLT, Chennai noted that there must

be absolute clarity from the CoC members, whether to vote for or against the

resolution plan, and there should never be any ambiguity regarding the viability of the

resolution plan. If any CoC member has any doubts regarding the viability of the

resolution plan, then the only option available is to vote against the resolution plan, as

the CoC members are required to exercise their commercial wisdom with absolute

clarity. Hence, the NCLT, Chennai rejected the stand of the CoC member that it had

voted in favour of the resolution plan under protest and held that the CoC member

having voted in favour of the resolution plan, is estopped from challenging the

resolution plan.

In M/s. Sakthi Containers Private Limited v. M/s. Bnazrum Agro Exports Limited, the

NCLT, Chennai rejected the contentions of the corporate debtor that:

(i) on the breach or violation of a settlement agreement, the applicant is required to

file a fresh petition and cannot seek the restoration of the original petition; and

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 9/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

(ii) given that the default due to the non-payment of third instalment pursuant to the

settlement agreement had arisen only on May 15, 2020 and the default amount in the

instant case was below the increased threshold of INR One Crore for the purposes of

initiating the CIRP which came into effect from March 24, 2020, the application of the

operational creditor for the initiation of the CIRP was not maintainable.

The NCLT, Chennai held that if the corporate debtor fails to comply with the terms of

the compromise and settlement, then the original insolvency application will be

restored, and the Adjudicating Authority shall take the same up for adjudication. The

NCLT, Chennai noted that if the insolvency application is not revived, then it will give

further room to the corporate debtor to violate any settlement arrived before March

24, 2020.

In Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. Mr. Mathur Sabhapathy Viswanathan, IRP &

Another, the NCLT, Chennai held that even though Regulation 12(2) of the IBBI
(Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016,

prescribing a timeline for the submission of claims, is directory in nature, the creditor

is required to furnish the reasons for the delay in the submission of its claim. Here, the

NCLT, Chennai refused to condone the delay of 217 days by the applicant in the

submission of its claim on the grounds that the applicant had failed to reason out the

delay in the submission of its claim and the quantified amount of the claim was under

dispute.

In Glix Securities Private Limited v. R.D. Rubber Reclaim Limited & Another, the NCLT,

Kolkata noted that there is no specific provision in the Code, which specifies the

course of action to be followed in case where a successful resolution applicant

applies to the Adjudicating Authority for the extension of the timeline of the resolution

plan either on account of force majeure circumstances or otherwise. Further, once a

resolution plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the CoC ceases to

exist, and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the CoC to consider the
https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 10/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

request. The NCLT, Kolkata stated that it is up to the Adjudicating Authority to decide

in such instances by invoking Rule 15 (power to extend time) of the National Company

Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.

In M/s. Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinod Sehwag (Personal Guarantor of

Xalta Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd.), the NCLT, New Delhi, while noting that there is no
straight-jacket formula applicable to the principles of natural justice, held that there is

no requirement of giving a notice to the personal guarantor against whom an

application has been filed under S. 95 of the Code at the initial stage of the

appointment of the resolution professional ("RP") under S. 97 of the Code. The

personal guarantor is provided with an opportunity to be heard before the RP under

Ss. 99(2) and 99(3) of the Code and before the adjudicating authority when the RP

submits his recommendation for approval of the application under S. 99(1) of the

Code.

In M/s. Essjay Ericsson Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Frontline (NCR) Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.,

the NCLT, New Delhi, following the decision of the NCLAT, New Delhi in Neeraj Jain v.

Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd., held that it is not in the discretion of
the operational creditor to issue demand notice either in Form 3 or Form 4. According

to Rule 5(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority)

Rules, 2016, if the claim of the operational creditor is based upon invoices, he is

required to serve demand notice only in Form 4 and not in Form 3. Further, the NCLT,

New Delhi, held that even when no reply is sent to the demand notice in terms of S.

8(2) of the Code, the corporate debtor can raise a dispute by filing a reply before the

Adjudicating Authority.

About The Authors: Siddharth is an advocate based out of Delhi. Karan is an advocate

based out of Mumbai. Soham is pursuing his B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) programme at

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 11/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

NALSAR University of Law. The present compilation represents the exclusive work of
the authors in their personal capacities, and is not linked to any of the
institutions/firms that they may be associated with.

TAGS #INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE  #NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881 

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL (NCLT)  CORPORATE INSOLVENCY  LIQUIDATOR 

#PERSONALGUARANTORS  OPERATIONAL CREDITOR  MSMES  #RESOLUTION PLAN 

loading....

+ VIEW MORE
SIMILAR POSTS

The Larger Issue Of IBC - The Journey So Far – Requirement For A Stronger
Copyright Claims In Film Part I Regulatory Regime
Industry
31 July 2021 3:30 PM 31 July 2021 12:27 PM 29 July 2021 5:18 PM

In Praise Of The CLAT India's Merger And Legal History Of Sedition -

Consortium: A Visually Acquisition Regime: The IPC 124A
Challenged Candidates Journey So Far
Lens
29 July 2021 12:20 PM 28 July 2021 5:55 PM 28 July 2021 9:42 AM
https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 12/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021
29 July 2021 12:20 PM 28 July 2021 5:55 PM 28 July 2021 9:42 AM

HRERA Regulations For Personal Data Protection CLAT Exam - 2021 (UG)
Sale Of Apartments On The Bill & The Surveillance Analysis
Basis Of Carpet Area Framework In India
27 July 2021 3:06 PM 27 July 2021 9:14 AM 26 July 2021 11:33 AM

A Letter To CLAT Pegasus Snooping & Gogoi It Is Time For The Govt To
Consortium Saga : Need For Supreme Redeem Itself And Repeal
Court To Reopen Suo Motu UAPA
Case
25 July 2021 2:21 PM 25 July 2021 11:45 AM 23 July 2021 6:54 PM

+ MORE
WEBINARS

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 13/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

[TODAY AT 5PM] Discussion On DEMOCRACY, DISSENT AND DRACONIAN LAW- Should

UAPA & Sedition Have A Place In Our Statute Books?

+ MORE
LAW FIRMS

Argus Partners Advises Kotak Investment Advisors Limited In Real Estate Investment Start-
Up, Strata In Their Series A fund-Raising Of $6 Million

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 14/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

+ MORE
LATEST NEWS

1 [Live-In] "Court Is Guardian Of Tender Aged Girls Who File Protection Plea
Without Knowing The Consequences": HC Directs Magistrate To Check If Girl Is
Capable Of Taking Decision

2 Senior, Even Though Less Meritorious, Shall Have Priority: Supreme Court
Explains Seniority Cum Merit Principle For Promotion

3 Provision Declared Unconstitutional Doesn't Get Wiped Out From Statute Book;
Only Becomes Unenforceable; Can Be Re-Enforced Once Defects Are Cured :
Delhi High Court

4 "Required To Ascertain As To Who Prepared Forged Bail Order": Delhi High

Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Woman

5 Delhi High Court Seeks GNCTD's Reply On Qualification Prescribed For Signing
Of Laboratory Reports By Medical Practitioners

6 'At Least 18% Indians Victims ' : Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Guidelines To
Curb Online Banking Frauds

7 'Conflicting Judgments By High Courts": Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea

Challenging Allahabad HC Order On Rule 9 Of Motor Vehicles Rules

8 COVID 19- Himachal Pradesh HC Seeks Response On Availability Of Medical

Facilities In Every District; Number Of Doctors & Paramedical Staff

लाइव लॉ हिंदी + MORE

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 15/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

'कम से कम 18 प्रतिशत भारतीय पीड़ित': ऑनलाइन बैंकिं ग धोखाधड़ी को रोकने के लिए दिशानिर्देश
जारी करने की मांग, सुप्रीम कोर्ट में याचिका

सुप्रीम कोर्ट वीकली राउंड अप: जानिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट में कै सा रहा पिछला सप्ताह

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 16/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

COVID -19 पीड़ितों के परिवारों के लिए अनुग्रह मुआवजे के आदेश पर पुनर्विचार के लिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट में
तीसरे पक्ष की पुनर्विचार याचिका

इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट में अपीलें काफी समय से लंबित : सुप्रीम कोर्ट निपटान के लिए मानदंड निर्धारित
करे गा

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 17/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने टीकाकरण नीति के खिलाफ पोस्टर लगाने पर दर्ज एफआईआर रद्द करने की मांग वाली
याचिका पर सुनवाई करने से इनकार किया

+ MORE
INTERNATIONAL

1 Nepal Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reinstates Dissolved House Of

Representatives

2 George Floyd Murder: Ex-Police Officer Derek Chauvin Sentenced To 22.5 Years
In Prison

3 Right To Life Is The Mother Of All Rights: Malawi Supreme Court Holds Death
Penalty Unconstitutional

4 Google v. Oracle : Perspectives on Copyright, Fair Use and Industry Implications

+ MORE
ENVIRONMENT

1 NGT Pulls Up Delhi Jal Board For Failing To Control Odour From A Sewage
Treatment Plant, Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Per Month Cost Till Compliance

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 18/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

[Pollution Of Ganga Tributaries In Varanasi] NGT Constitutes Independent

2 Monitoring Committee For Restoration And Rejuvenation Of Rivers Varuna And
Assi

3 Industrial Units Cannot Operate Without Prior Environment Clearance, State Has
No Power To Exempt Requirement Of Prior EC: NGT

4 Juhi Chawla Moves Delhi High Court Against Roll-Out Of 5G Telecom Services

JOB UPDATES

1. Deputy Director Vacancy At Ministry Of Home Affairs (MHA), NATGRID, Delhi [Apply By
12th September 2021]

2. Deputy Director (UA-Representative) Vacancy At Ministry Of Home Affairs (MHA),

NATGRID, Delhi [Apply By 12th September 2021]

3. Deputy Director (RM-FIU) Vacancy At Ministry Of Home Affairs (MHA), NATGRID, Delhi
[Apply By 12th September 2021]

4. Multiple Teaching, Non-Teaching Positions Vacancy At RGNUL, Punjab [Apply By 2nd

August 2021]

5. Andhra Pradesh Civil Judge (Junior Division) Recruitment 2021: [Apply By 20th August
2021]

+ VIEW MORE

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 19/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

JUST ENTER YOUR EMAIL FOR THE

LIVELAW DAILY NEWS BRIEFING BY
EMAIL ALL THE DAY'S HEADLINES AND
HIGHLIGHTS FROM LIVELAW, DIRECT
TO YOU EVERY MORNING

NEWSLETTERS
DIRECTLY IN YOUR MAILBOX

Enter Your Email

Submit

TOP STORIES KNOW THE LAW

NEWS UPDATE LAW FIRMS

COLUMNS JOB UPDATES

INTERVIEWS BOOK REVIEWS

INTERNATIONAL EVENTS CORNER

RTI UPDATES COVER STORY

EDITOR'S PICK PLACEMENTS

LAW SCHOOL CORNER SCHOLARSHIPS

ARTICLES SEMINARS

CALL FOR PAPERS ENVIRONMENT

COMPETITIONS BOOK REVIEWS

INTERNSHIPS

https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 20/21
7/31/2021 Insolvency Law in Review and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- June 2021

© All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw

Powered By Hocalwire

Who We Are Careers Advertise With Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms And Conditions



https://elibrary.nlunagpur.ac.in:2054/columns/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-law-national-company-law-tribunal-178429 21/21