The case involves writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The petitioners argue that certain sections of the IBC are discriminatory, arbitrary, and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Key issues raised include the classification of financial and operational creditors, the eligibility criteria for resolution applicants under Section 29A, and the powers of the committee of creditors (CoC). The petitions also question the appointment ofmembers to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and the administrative control of these tribunals.
The petitions challenge the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioners, argued that the appointment of NCLT and NCLAT members was contrary to previous court judgments. He also contended that Section 7 of the IBC unfairly discriminates between financial and operational creditors, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. He further argued that Section 12A, regarding withdrawal of insolvency applications, and Section 29A, concerning eligibility of resolution applicants, are unconstitutional. The Union of India, represented by the Attorney General and Solicitor General, countered that the IBC is a necessary economic reform, designed to maximize asset value and promote
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was…
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was…
The case involves writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The petitioners argue that certain sections of the IBC are discriminatory, arbitrary, and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Key issues raised include the classification of financial and operational creditors, the eligibility criteria for resolution applicants under Section 29A, and the powers of the committee of creditors (CoC). The petitions also question the appointment ofmembers to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and the administrative control of these tribunals.
The petitions challenge the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioners, argued that the appointment of NCLT and NCLAT members was contrary to previous court judgments. He also contended that Section 7 of the IBC unfairly discriminates between financial and operational creditors, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. He further argued that Section 12A, regarding withdrawal of insolvency applications, and Section 29A, concerning eligibility of resolution applicants, are unconstitutional. The Union of India, represented by the Attorney General and Solicitor General, countered that the IBC is a necessary economic reform, designed to maximize asset value and promote
…The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was…
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was…