Posts

Pre-Existing Dispute under IBC: Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 9 of IBC

By Jasmin Sokhi
Image
Pre-Existing Dispute under IBC: Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 9 GLS Films Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemical Suppliers India Pvt. Ltd.  (2026 INSC 344) 1.  Introduction The Supreme Court, in this significant decision, has once again clarified the scope and limitations of proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“ IBC ”). The ruling reiterates a crucial principle: the IBC is not a forum for adjudication of disputed claims or recovery of contested dues. The judgment reinforces that even the existence of a  plausible pre-existing dispute  is sufficient to reject an application filed by an operational creditor, thereby safeguarding corporate debtors from coercive insolvency proceedings. 2.   Factual Matrix In the case initiation of CIRP was denied by the adjudicating authority but the appellate authority reversed the decision. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Corporate Debtor filed an Appeal before the Hon'...
Post a Comment
Read more

Whether mobile service providers who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business infrastructure can claim the benefit of CENVAT Credit?

By Jasmin Sokhi
Image
M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune (2024 INSC 880) Core Legal Issue that arose before the Supreme Court  The fundamental question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether mobile service providers (MSPs), who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business infrastructure — particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like prefabricated buildings — can claim the benefit of CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (" CENVAT Rules "), for the purpose of payment of service tax on the output services rendered by them. Background and Conflicting High Court Decisions This case arose due to conflicting views taken by two High Courts: Bombay High Court Position The Bombay High Court in   Bharti Airtel Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise , Pune  (decided on August 26, 2014) held against the MSPs, ruling that mobile towers and other components do not fall within the definition of "capital goods...
Post a Comment
Read more

SC: IBC: Whether holders of Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016

By Jasmin Sokhi
Image
  EPC Constructions India Limited v. M/s Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited (Supreme Court, 28 October 2025) I. Brief Background:  In a recent significant judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of  EPC Constructions India Limited v. M/s Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited  (judgment delivered 28 October 2025), the Court categorically held that holders of Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (" IBC ") as preference shareholders are investors, and not financial creditors.  In this case the Appellant (EPCC) had entered into an engineering and construction contract with the Respondent. The contract was for establishment of a fertiliser complex of ammonia and urea production. Two different off-shore supply contracts were also executed between the parties. In view thereof, a sum of 572 crore became due ...
Post a Comment
Read more