The case involves an appeal against the admission of an insolvency resolution process against Innoventive Industries Ltd. initiated by ICICI Bank under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The appellant argued that no debt was legally due because of notifications under the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, which temporarily suspended liabilities. The NCLT admitted the application, holding that the IBC would prevail over the Maharashtra Act. The NCLAT upheld this decision, stating that the IBC and the Maharashtra Act operate in different fields and are not repugnant, but the appellant could not use the Maharashtra Act to stall the insolvency process. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Innoventive Industries Ltd., a multi-product company, faced losses due to labor problems starting in August 2012. Unable to service financial assistance from 19 banking entities, the appellant proposed corporate debt restructuring. A consortium of lenders, led by the Central Bank of India, approved a CDR resolution plan in February 2014. A master restructuring agreement (MRA) was entered into on September 9, 2014, involving fund infusion by creditors and obligations for debtors. ICICI Bank Ltd. filed an application on December 7, 2016, stating the appellant was a defaulter under the IBC. The appellant claimed no debt was legally due because of Maharashtra Relief Undertakings Act notifications. The NCLT held the IBC prevailed over the Maharashtra Act on January 17,
…Sign in to view the parties.
Innoventive Industries…
A consortium of lenders, led by the Central…
The case involves an appeal against the admission of an insolvency resolution process against Innoventive Industries Ltd. initiated by ICICI Bank under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The appellant argued that no debt was legally due because of notifications under the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, which temporarily suspended liabilities. The NCLT admitted the application, holding that the IBC would prevail over the Maharashtra Act. The NCLAT upheld this decision, stating that the IBC and the Maharashtra Act operate in different fields and are not repugnant, but the appellant could not use the Maharashtra Act to stall the insolvency process. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Innoventive Industries Ltd., a multi-product company, faced losses due to labor problems starting in August 2012. Unable to service financial assistance from 19 banking entities, the appellant proposed corporate debt restructuring. A consortium of lenders, led by the Central Bank of India, approved a CDR resolution plan in February 2014. A master restructuring agreement (MRA) was entered into on September 9, 2014, involving fund infusion by creditors and obligations for debtors. ICICI Bank Ltd. filed an application on December 7, 2016, stating the appellant was a defaulter under the IBC. The appellant claimed no debt was legally due because of Maharashtra Relief Undertakings Act notifications. The NCLT held the IBC prevailed over the Maharashtra Act on January 17,
…Innoventive Industries…
A consortium of lenders, led by the Central…