Recent Amendments in the IBC, 2020

I. Introduction

India's corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) was considered slow and ineffective as it contained simultaneous operation of statutory provisions which overshadowed each other. The inefficiency in dealing with the insolvency and bankruptcy proved to be a very complex situation in the legal arena. These different legitimate methods and a court framework prompted India to see a colossal accumulating of non-performing assets, and creditors trusting that year will recover their cash. Many of these contributed to the 2016 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's evolution. The development or growth of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is regarded as a milestone development in the insolvency settlement phase of India that has been puzzling since the beginning. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code sought to instil trust in the borrowers for their money to be easily recovered and the code also made an effort to allow the credit to flow freely. The Code incorporates current corporate and individual business insolvency rules into a unified statute. The statute protecting the statutory interests of creditors has been consolidated by the Code and amends the manner in which a bankrupt company can be revived in order to maintain its debt without abolishing the rights of creditors.

The entire purpose of the insolvency law was to relieve the insolvency party prior to the IBC's evolution². This though, caused the borrowers or creditors a lot of problems. The practice of the insolvency law was sluggish and very ambiguous because of the presence of too many laws and adjudicatory bodies, as already stated in contrast. This led to long-lasting insolvency cases that continued for decades as well. The launch of the IBC was well promoted, leading to a boost in consumer confidence and moving closer to the aim of ease of doing business. In the shorter period provided by the Act, some of the reasons for these positive improvements are maximizing the asset value of an insolvent company, putting more emphasis on settlement rather than liquidation, etc. This crucial change has moved the borrowers' power into the hands of the creditors.

The IBC is considered an insolvency law paradigm shift. The code has helped not only wealthy companies or businesses but also Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) through its debt restructuring process and faster liquidation³. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code allows for the administration of several cases through standardised and specialist fora. The object of having such uniformity is to reduce the confusion that occurs as a result of trials being compounded, consequent delay, and potential money loss. Also, the Code repealed and replaced many laws which are conflicting with its rules to encourage such consolidation. Some of the important features of the code are:

• The IBC is a comprehensive law that not only includes individuals but also companies, LLPs, and partnership firms. Further, the process of initiation of insolvency can be done by both debtors and creditors.
• National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is the adjudicating authority for companies and LLPs whereas for individuals and partnership firms it is the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)⁴.
• The Act provides for a maximum time limit of 180 days, which may be extended by 90 days for the completion of the insolvency resolution process.
• Certified practitioners shall be named to oversee the insolvency settlement process of the company. The mechanism of corporate insolvency under IBC can be undertaken by the operating creditor, the financial creditor, or the company itself.
• Committee of Creditors is responsible and has the power to make decisions regarding all the important affairs of the company/firm. The establishment of a CoC was

envisaged in compliance with Section 21 of the Code, according to which all financial creditors are party to the CoC.

Economic law is fundamentally empirical and develops by research constantly. The Law of Insolvency and Bankruptcy, 2016 is no different, for good cause it was a road under renovation. It envisaged regular, plain villa procedures, but awaited timely course corrections to continue to support the company and economy. These adjustments were pertinent to the problems faced during the introduction of the code regarding the provisions and due to the changes in the economic environment. Since its adoption, the code has undergone regulatory amendments in line with the changing business conditions and economic environment to improve the mechanisms and advance its objectives⁵.

In 2019 the government enacted the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law (Amendment) Bill, 2019 to extend the duration of the process of resolution of insolvency and to ensure the primacy of financial creditors in the event of recoveries. The bill aims to address ambiguities that had arisen as a result of an insolvency settlement order provided by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on Essar Steel⁶. Many primary clarifications were made in the bill that would place the creditors' committee in charge of the proceeds so that an effective settlement agreement can be achieved under the IBC. The reforms specify that unsecured financial creditors and institutional creditors do not need to be handled on an equal basis with secured financial creditors to be deemed equitable. Further, after the amendment act of IBC, 2019 the mandatory limit for completion of all resolution processes including extensions was 330 days⁷.

"A dynamic law is one which is crafted in the context of life. Given that life is ever-evolving, the code underwent prompt course corrections, to address the deficiencies arising from the implementation of the code, in sync with the emerging market realities, to further its objectives"⁸. It would have been impossible to foresee how the insolvency law would be in the next two years, its development, and how the changes in the environment would take place. These years have made some big strides and there are still some problems to be overcome, of course, it has had a positive effect on the business and contributed to many settlements and liquidations, thus bringing more capital into the hands of banks and financial institutions. Yet the present condition is an exceptional one, with the emergence of COVID-19.

II. Covid-19 situation

The COVID-19 pandemic shook the entire world, gradually converting what began as a health crisis into a fight for survival. The pandemic has had an immense effect on all facets of our way of life. From the global economy to the simple needs of life, one will note the drastic effects. In order to combat the detrimental effects of COVID-19 on the economy of the world, the Government of India has taken a series of measures to safeguard those most impacted by the pandemic. However, there has been confusion as to whether the Government of India would adjust the functioning of the 2016 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act following the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic in India. On 23 March 2020, the Central Government announced a range of relief measures relating to statutory and regulatory enforcement problems across sectors, including the raising of the minimum default threshold under IBC from IRP 1 Lakes to INR 1 Crores. It was also announced that a six-month suspension of IBC Sections 7, 9 and 10 was proposed by the Central Government in an effort to foresee the suspension of IBC Sections 7, 9 and 10⁹.

The Ministry of Law and Justice eventually introduced the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 on June 5, 2020, after multiple consultations and deliberations. The amendment postponed all-new CIRP procedures to be implemented on or after 25 March 2020 for six months or for such additional period as may be notified, which shall be extended by one year after 25 March 2020¹⁰. The primary aim and intention of the ordinance are to promote and cover corporate debtors who may fail to satisfy their responsibilities and who are suffering hardship as a result of the pandemic. The probable difficulties in attracting an adequate number of settlement applications to save corporate debtors is another rationale since most corporate individuals are believed to be under burden after COVID-19. Consequently, those settlement applicants do not partake in the corporate debtor's rebirth, which is likely to violate IBC's primary purpose, namely, to reclaim the corporate debtor and to increase the worth of the assets/properties of the corporate debtor.

III. IBC, 2020 amendment: changes made through amendment

• Section 10A was added to the main act by the Ordinance. The section also suspends the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on any failure that occurs after 25 March 2020 (CIRP). Currently, the termination is for a limited duration of six months, but the order reserves the power to extend the period to one year.
• In addition, the proviso of Section 10A specifies that for defaults arising in that time period, no appeal for CIRP 'shall ever be submitted' shall be made.
• Sub-section (3) of Section 66 of 2016, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is further integrated into the Ordinance. It specifies that in accordance with Sec 66(2), a Resolution Expert or Specialist is no longer allowed to request to cause CIRP for any default occurring during the defined time¹¹.

Confusions also arose as to whether the suspension of the proceedings, will only be applicable to sections 7 and 9 of the IBC, which relate to the introduction, by financial creditors and organizational creditors, Corporate Insolvency Settlement Mechanism ('CIRP') or Section 10, voluntary initiation of the CIRP by corporate creditors. With the inclusion of Sec. 10A, which repealed all of these three parts for a 'defect' that existed on or after 25 March 2020¹², this requirement was clarified. The aim behind this is to deter corporate individuals from suffering as stated in the ordinance because of an 'unprecedented crisis'. The purpose behind this is to prevent corporate individuals from struggling because of an 'unprecedented crisis' as described in the ordinance. In this moment of crisis, it is not honourable to put these strained units into bankruptcy proceedings and to push them into the courts, and it is justified to suspend, for that matter, sections 7 and 9. However, the suspension of Sec. 10 is troublesome and can negate the whole intent of the insolvency code, and therefore the claim falls short of the required and much-needed justification.

One of IBC's core goals is to protect and rescue companies financially or operationally by supplying them with another life or potential, even after defaulting. Sec. 10 permits the holder of the corporate account to wilfully transfer a disputed appeal to cause CIRP against itself with locus standi¹³. CIRP's key motive is to support both the borrower and the debtor while working on cash optimization, as IBC's mission is to look out for all parties and help fix the problems. This potential under Sec. 10 is not justified in this crisis and it could be necessary for the situation to continue for an unknown duration, not having distressed firms that are unable to survive. Furthermore, a Sec. 10A clarification clarified that Sec. 10A would not apply to any default that existed until March 25, 2020, and it is a relief that there is no 'blanket ban' that these units would not be able to survive in an indebted state theoretically because the 'debt would ultimately oust itself'¹⁴. Taking into account the liquidity issue caused by the pandemic, the suspension of the IBC alone will not be adequate until an appropriate mechanism for the availability of credit is proposed. In the meaning of 'default' in section 3(12) of the IBC, no undifferentiated change was made¹⁵. Confirming that the standard existed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic would be a dark field.

IV. Analysis of the ibc, 2020 amendment

The way the IBC,2020 ordinance was drafted was not effective and it led to many conflicting and confusing interpretations. The main cause of confusion with respect to Section 10A is the use of the expression 'as may be informed' used at the end of the section. Many analysts, deceived by this incorrect positioning, mistakenly connected this term to the immediately preceding phrase "such date." This has given rise to misinterpretation. The term "such date" is already given as 25 March 2020, so no further notice is needed. Also, as used in the first clause of Sec. 10A, the phrase "no application shall ever be filed" presents a critical concern as to whether it will be difficult for the borrower to begin CIRP right after the end of the "disruption period"¹⁶. If this is the case, the creditor will not be able to reclaim the debts until the debtor has stabilized from the recession and is no longer coping with an 'unprecedented situation,' thereby granting the debtors the luxury of unreasonably receiving the assurances of the declaration. Practically, if such an interpretation were given, the clause will be counter intuitive. Debtors unable to make permanent use of this 'escape to compensate' will have to default as soon as possible during this time of uncertainty. Since it will completely contradict the purpose of the IBC, this should not and is not the object of the legislation. Contextually and logically, the term 'as may be notified' is connected to the phrase 'such additional time' that could be notified in due course by the Central Government after an assessment of the overall situation of the COVID-19 pandemic in the near future. This key part of Section 10A describes, in fact, the "default period" rather than the "non-filing period"¹⁷. It may have been easier to cast or rearrange the main part of Section 10A or rather if it were drafted in an effective way it would not have led to all these confusions or interpretations.

The cases of dishonest/fraudulent trade are dealt with by Section 66 of the IBC¹⁸. If the corporate debtor seeks to defraud its creditors after the CIRP, the arbitration specialist is entitled to appeal to the adjudicatory tribunal on the properties of the corporate debtor in relation to the corporate debtor's debt¹⁹. Sub-section (3) of the Ordinance forbids mediation practitioners from making defaults, resulting in a period of time suspended by the Ordinance²⁰. This act of the central government is contrary to the standards of justice and to Section 66 itself because, during that time, it appears to allow corporate debtors to commit fraudulent actions and not to be kept responsible for the same because of the cover given by Section 10A to them. Further much-awaited clarifications are needed for this reason behind the insertion of this subsection. The order should also be reviewed in accordance with the RBI notification dated 23 May 2020²¹, which extended the moratorium on the EMI term loan for a further three months. Accordingly, in the cases referred to in Section 7, because the creditors are already benefiting from an extended moratorium for a total of six months under the aforementioned RBI Notice, this Regulation would not be of any use for that length. Consequently, this law basically disservices corporate creditors while financial creditors already have the RBI moratorium²².

Further, there is uncertainty as to whether the INR 1 crore minimum requirement will be available in cases prior to 25 March 2020. The MCA note was enforced with respect to the initiation of the CIRP, which raised the minimum threshold from one lakh to one crore rupees²³. The threshold increase was used to help small businesses and MSMEs who were the hardest hit due to the lockout imposed and to curtail COVID-19's further distribution. The government's note did not explain the applicability of the raise, however. If the threshold increased is prospectively or retrospectively extended, it is not specified in the note issued. However, according to the case of S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills v. Union of India²⁴ the court held that until it is explicitly mentioned a statute or law is deemed to apply prospectively. As a consequence of judicial intervention, the prospective applicability of the expanded threshold is often open to various interpretations and the notification is simply a subordinate assigned law rather than an amendment itself.

V. Impact/implications of the amendment

The 2020 IBC (Amendment) Ordinance has created problems and raised some concerns that need to be explained further. Though this has clarified some aspects for the stakeholders, the drafting has more than invited other interpretations that essentially challenge the intention or meaning behind the directive. With all the said confusions, the impact, and implications of the said ordinance can be discussed below:

• The enforcement of Section 10A creates a clear bar on the commencement, in compliance with Sections 7, 9, and 10, of the corporate insolvency resolution procedure for a default occurring on or after 25 March 2020 for a period of six months (up to one year as may be notified). The borrower will never file an appeal for defaults that have happened over such a time under the Statute. We have to see if it is feasible to cut through and pursue this section of default through some legal recourses.
• The Ordinance shall have no effect on situations in which the corporate insolvency resolution process has already been begun prior to 25 March 2020.
• Application of the Ordinance retrospectively or prospectively will be done with respect to cases where the corporate insolvency settlement process was launched between 25 March 2020 and 5 June 2020.
• According to the explanation, Section 10 A would not extend to any default previous to 25 March 2020; for example, if the default happened prior to 25 March 2020 and, owing to the economic effect of the Lock-Down, the debtor did not receive estimated sales in the following six months in order to resolve its obligations, the debtor will not be entitled to an exception under the Ordinance.
• In order to decide the application of the Ordinance, the date of "default" will all be appropriate. The date of default can specifically be attributed to the date that the debtor was considered a "Non-Performing Asset" in the case of a secured loan. In the case of an unsecured loan providing for a deposit dependent on an instalment, it must be seen if any instalment default past the six-month span may be regarded as a 'default' date, allowing the borrower the opportunity to invoke the provisions of the Code. In this case, relating to such judgments about what constitutes a norm is of serious significance. However, in the light of the determination of limits for the purposes of the Code, it is our opinion that such decisions will be specifically applicable to the Ordinance.
• As the Resolution Specialist is to be appointed on the day the Insolvency Process begins, the productivity will be improved, and the proceedings will be concluded in a time-bound manner. A strict timetable will be observed by the partners and all the paperwork will also have to be completed before the start of the process. This will make for a smoother path to the company's revival, as time will be measured from the day the proceedings begin.
• The root cause of default must be resolved with the clarification of the rights of the corporate debtor, i.e., that he may institute an insolvency proceeding against another corporate debtor even though he is facing an insolvency proceeding against himself.
• The Corporate Debtor will benefit from the non-cancellation of contracts, permits, quotas, loans, etc., meaning that the basic condition for the company's actions during the insolvency process remains unchanged.
• The extension of the concept of temporary funding would enable further spending for the corporate debtor's revival.

VI. Effects on future and pending cases

The 24.03.2020 notice would not allow the amended limits to be enforced retrospectively. The earlier threshold of one lakh Rupees will now be referred to pending cases. Eventually, the most recent applicants demanding the opening of the CIRP would have to comply with the amended condition of default of the minimum Rupees of one Crore by the corporate debtor. As a result of financial problems, it can still be difficult for companies undertaking CIRP to complete the procedure within the 330-day duration stated in Section 12(3) of the IBC, even after the lockdown period has been removed. With respect to this, it is reasonable to consider the decision in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors²⁵, whereby the Supreme Court overturned the term "mandatory" used in the abovesaid clause as manifestly unconstitutional pursuant to Article 14 of the Constitution of India²⁶ and as an unfair and unnecessary limitation on the freedom of the litigant to conduct business pursuant to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution²⁷. Moreover, considering the confusion created by the pandemic, it may be difficult for organizations who are actively seeking the CIRP to recruit resolution applicants. In circumstances where the resolution application has been submitted by the resolution applicant and is pending approval by the Board of Creditors or the adjudicating authority, the resolution applicant may require that the resolution proposals already submitted be revised or that the submission/termination process be terminated since it is probable that the valuations and the viability of the undertaking are ongoing. Since there is no clause in the IBC authorizing the resolution claimant to amend or delete an application for a resolution awaiting approval by the adjudicating authority, in the case State Bank of India v. Metalyst Forgings Ltd, a vide order of the National Corporate Law Tribunal of Mumbai dated 27.09.2019²⁸, approved prayer by the arbitration claimant asking that the submission process be annulled. Furthermore, in the Committee of Creditors of Metalyst Forging Ltd. v. Deccan Value Investors LP²⁹, the vide order released on 07-02-2020 by the National Corporate Law Appellate Tribunal upheld the order given by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench in State Bank of India v. Metalyst Forgings Ltd. on 27-09-2019 and noted that the IBC does not position the adjudicating authority with any authority and jurisdiction to force results³⁰.

VII. Comparison with uk

The Covid-19 situation has impacted not only India but the entire globe. The unprecedented magnitude of the global COVID-19 pandemic in some provinces has forced the courts to take exceptional steps and measures to help curb the unexpected situation. Like how India introduced the IBC,2020 ordinance in the UK as well some measures were taken. In response to what has been described as' aggressive rent collection,' the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was adopted by the UK government and it has proposed insolvency law reforms intended to protect businesses impacted by COVID-19 in general and from landlord interference³¹. However, this was just a draft resolution passed in order to pass the law. Although the news of the reforms is welcome, it is not explicit in terms of detail and the exact timeline of when they are to be introduced. The Government of the United Kingdom has announced that the laws needed to enact the legislation will be enforced as quickly as possible. The UK Parliament is currently in session until 21 April 2020, so it is impossible to enact the necessary legislation until then³². Considering the unexpected circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government could have taken some measures under emergency situations like India and should have and implemented the provisions as early as possible. As each and every individual is hit by the pandemic and if appropriate measures are not taken by the government the effect will be seen hard. Compared to the UK and other countries we can say that India took appropriate steps to tried and curb the effect of the pandemic on its millions of populations. Coming to India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2020 even though there are many loopholes and grey areas that need to be amended further it is still an efficient step towards progress.

VIII. Conclusion

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of India is in its early stages and has been revised many times since its introduction in order to keep up with the changing times and to resolve the confusion created by the code. The code significantly strengthens India's ability to tackle insolvency effectively and, in a time, bound way. The Code ends the strained association between corporate debtors and lenders, who have been required to continue servicing errant debtors indefinitely in the hope that their dues will eventually be received without a credible insolvency regime in place, amid procedural bottlenecks that have significantly delayed the first few prosecutions as nuances in the law are ironed out. Lenders are now able to impose immense pressure on borrowers to restructure their debts in a time-bound manner in order to increase their repayments, considering the creditor-led approach found in the Code. As mentioned earlier, debtors and their controlling owners have also been motivated by the possibility of being included in a Code action to ensure timely compliance with repayment criteria. Taking into account the broader meaning of the implementation of the national tax on goods and services, the relaxation of the requirements for foreign investment, the restructuring of governance, and the strengthening of anti-corruption legislation, the Code is an important step in facilitating business in India.

The new steps by the government are being taken to curtail the COVID-19 crisis, with the goal of economically boosting the private sector. The sustainability and renaissance of the Corporate Debtor have been given due priority. In a way, it can be seen that the new amendment is inclined against the Corporate Debtor. In this market, corporate debtors and practitioners will have an immense influence on the changes anticipated. As the strategy has changed from debt management to corporate recovery, a positive imprint on the economy is often believed to be established. If all collapsed businesses were to face insolvency proceedings, most of them could end up liquidating for lack of saviours to save them. After such liquidation, the firms would be marketing suffering, knowing nothing abysmal. In these rare times, it must not be used to steal away their lives excessively, the main purpose of the Code is to rescue the lives of firms.

Another experiment involved a decision in this unprecedented situation between two competing policy decisions, namely, stopping the operations of the code or continuing its operations as usual. If the first alternative was exercised, the economy will fail to liquidate an unviable company. For the country, this is not perfect, but it can be corrected in the next quarter or the following year. If the second option is exercised, the economy will forever liquidate a prosperous industry that can never be reversed. Therefore, it is much more important to salvage a profitable enterprise than to struggle to liquidate an enviable one. In addition, as soon as normalcy is returned, businesses that struggle purely on account of COVID-19 will bounce back on their own. Alternatively, at least their procedures and businesses will be recalibrated to an 'all-new level'. The decision then falls on the first option, which offers breathing time for companies and promotes the goal of the code.

The crisis of COVID-19 is not the first crisis to have struck the planet. The planet has waged numerous wars in the past and has conquered them. This too will pass, preparing humanity in the future for even greater obstacles. There are many warriors in the insolvency room in this war-the administration, the regulator, and the service providers, etc. Hope exists that the steps taken in the short and medium-term will be taken while the government prepares the country's insolvency environment for the post-COVID-19 stage in the longer term.

*****

IX. References

1. The IBC 2016: Redefining Insolvency Law In India And COVID-19 Ramifications' (B&B Associates LLP, 2020) https://bnblegal.com/article/the-ibc-2016-redefining-insolvency-law-in-india-and-covid-19-ramifications/.

2. 'Insolvency Law In Times Of COVID-19', From Chairperson’s Desk. https://ibbi.gov.in /uploads/resources/19f5dd1867e29b404046912df2b065f8.pdf.

3. 'National Company Law Appellate Tribunal' (Nclat.nic.in, 2019) https://nclat.nic.in/U seradmin/upload/10273337075c8fa03609b52.pdf.

4. 'THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2019' (2020) No. 16 OF 2019 MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalframwork/d6b171ec9b9ea5c54f7423bc36f92977.pdf.

5. M.S. Sahoo, 'A Journey Of Endless Hope'. https://www.ibbi.gov.in/uploads/resource s/c4a7232cc0b5b08ecafd9e416b677446.pdf.

6. 'IBC (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 – Ensuring Companies’ Survival | Lawstreetindia.Com' (Lawstreetindia.com, 2020) http://www.lawstreetindia.com/expert s/column?sid=405.

7. 'THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2020' (2020) NO. 9 OF 2020 MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalframwork/741059f0d8777f311ec76332ced1e9cf.pdf.

8. 'Analysis Of IBC (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 – A Step Towards Protecting The Economy Or Creating Arbitrariness? - By Renuka Mishra & Aakash Batra - IBC Laws' (IBC Laws, 2020) https://ibclaw.in/analysis-of-ibc-amendment-ordinance-2020-a-step-towards-protecting-the-economy-or-creating-arbitrariness-by-renuka-mishra-aakash-batra/.

9. 'Impact Of COVID-19 On The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016 | SCC Blog' (SCC Blog, 2020) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/04/17/impact-of-covid-19-on-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/.

10. 'COVID-19: Changes To UK Insolvency Legislation' (Smith & Williamson, 2020) https://smithandwilliamson.com/en/insights/covid-19-changes-to-uk-insolvency-legislation/.

11. 'Coronavirus: Changes To UK Insolvency Law | Insights | DLA Piper Global Law Firm' (DLA Piper, 2020) https://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2020/03/coro navirus-changes-to-uk-insolvency-law/.

12. RBI Notification, 23rd May,2020. [RBI/2019-20/244 DOR]. Oh, no. BP.BC.71/21.04.048/2019-20]. https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/NT24 55D86E6F80D9D4BC29C0DFAA43D76D9A4.PDF.

13. MCA Notification No. S.O.1205(E), dated 24 March 2020. http://www.mca.gov.in/Min istry/pdf/Notification_28032020.pdf.

14. S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills v. Union of India [(2006) 2 SCC 740].

15. Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel (India) Ltd. Through State Bank of India v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 03 Of 2019 | 03-01-2019.

16. The Constitution of India 1950.

17. State Bank of India v. Metalyst Forgings Ltd., (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1276 of 2019.

18. Metalyst Forging Ltd. v. Deccan Value Investors LP, 107(IBC)76/2020.

19. Dr.Binoy J. Kattadiyil, 'INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT ACT), 2020: AN ANALYSIS' (Icsiiip.com, 2020). https://icsiiip.com/ Portals/0/INSOLVENCY%20AND%20BANKRUPTCY%20CODE%20%28AMENDMENT%20ACT%29%2C%202020%20AN%20ANALYSIS%20%20ijmer%20volume9-issue3%284%29-2020.pdf.

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is a student at O.P. Jindal Global University, India.

2. 'The IBC 2016: Redefining Insolvency Law In India And COVID-19 Ramifications' (B&B Associates LLP, 2020) https://bnblegal.com/article/the-ibc-2016-redefining-insolvency-law-in-india-and-covid-19-ramifications/. ↩

3. 'The IBC 2016: Redefining Insolvency Law In India And COVID-19 Ramifications' (B&B Associates LLP, 2020) https://bnblegal.com/article/the-ibc-2016-redefining-insolvency-law-in-india-and-covid-19-ramifications/. ↩

4. 'The IBC 2016: Redefining Insolvency Law In India And COVID-19 Ramifications' (B&B Associates LLP, 2020) https://bnblegal.com/article/the-ibc-2016-redefining-insolvency-law-in-india-and-covid-19-ramifications/. ↩

5. 'Insolvency Law In Times Of COVID-19', From Chairperson's Desk. https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/resources/1 9f5dd1867e29b404046912df2b065f8.pdf. ↩

6. 'National Company Law Appellate Tribunal' (Nclat.nic.in, 2019)https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/10273 337075c8fa03609b52.pdf. ↩

7. 'THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2019' (2020) No. 16 OF 2019, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department). https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalf ramwork/d6b171ec9b9ea5c54f7423bc36f92977.pdf. ↩

8. M.S. Sahoo, 'A Journey Of Endless Hope' https://www.ibbi.gov.in/uploads/resources/c4a7232cc0b5b08 ecafd9e416b677446.pdf. ↩

9. 'IBC (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 – Ensuring Companies' Survival | Lawstreetindia.Com' (Lawstreetindia.com, 2020) http://www.lawstreetindia.com/experts/column?sid=405. ↩

10. 'THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2020' (2020) NO. 9 OF 2020 MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalfra mwork/741059f0d8777f311ec76332ced1e9cf.pdf. ↩

11. INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2020' (2020) NO. 9 OF 2020 MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department). https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalfram work/741059f0d8777f311ec76332ced1e9cf.pdf. ↩

12. 'Analysis Of IBC (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 – A Step Towards Protecting The Economy Or Creating Arbitrariness? - By Renuka Mishra & Aakash Batra - IBC Laws' (IBC Laws, 2020) https://ibclaw.in/analysis-of-ibc-amendment-ordinance-2020-a-step-towards-protecting-the-economy-or-creating-arbitrariness-by-renuka-mishra-aakash-batra/. ↩

13. Section 10, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. ↩

14. 'Analysis Of IBC (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 – A Step Towards Protecting The Economy Or Creating Arbitrariness? - By Renuka Mishra & Aakash Batra - IBC Laws' (IBC Laws, 2020) https://ibclaw.in/analysis-of-ibc-amendment-ordinance-2020-a-step-towards-protecting-the-economy-or-creating-arbitrariness-by-renuka-mishra-aakash-batra/. ↩

15. Section 3(12), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. ↩

16. Section 10A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. ↩

17. Section 10A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. ↩

18. Section 66, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. ↩

19. 'THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2020' (2020) NO. 9 OF 2020 MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department). https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalfram work/741059f0d8777f311ec76332ced1e9cf.pdf. ↩

20. 'THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2020' (2020) NO. 9 OF 2020 MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department). https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalfram work/741059f0d8777f311ec76332ced1e9cf.pdf. ↩

21. RBI Notification 23^rd May 2020 [RBI/2019-20/244 DOR]. Oh, no. BP.BC.71/21.04.048/2019-20]. https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/NT2455D86E6F80D9D4BC29C0DFAA43D76D9A4.PDF. ↩

22. 'Analysis Of IBC (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 – A Step Towards Protecting The Economy Or Creating Arbitrariness? - By Renuka Mishra & Aakash Batra - IBC Laws' (IBC Laws, 2020) https://ibclaw.in/analysis-of-ibc-amendment-ordinance-2020-a-step-towards-protecting-the-economy-or-creating-arbitrariness-by-renuka-mishra-aakash-batra/. ↩

23. MCA Notification No. S.O.1205(E), dated 24 March 2020. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/N otification_28032020.pdf. ↩

24. S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills v. Union of India [(2006) 2 SCC 740]. ↩

25. Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel (India) Ltd. Through State Bank of India v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 03 Of 2019 | 03-01-2019. ↩

26. Article 14, The Constitution of India 1950. ↩

27. The Constitution of India 1950. ↩

28. State Bank of India v. Metalyst Forgings Ltd., (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1276 of 2019. ↩

29. Metalyst Forging Ltd. v. Deccan Value Investors LP, 107(IBC)76/2020. ↩

30. 'Impact Of COVID-19 On The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016 | SCC Blog' (SCC Blog, 2020) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/04/17/impact-of-covid-19-on-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/. ↩

31. 'COVID-19: Changes To UK Insolvency Legislation' (Smith & Williamson, 2020) https://smithandwilliamson .com/en/insights/covid-19-changes-to-uk-insolvency-legislation/ ↩

32. 'Coronavirus: Changes To UK Insolvency Law | Insights | DLA Piper Global Law Firm' (DLA Piper, 2020) https://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2020/03/coronavirus-changes-to-uk-insolvency-law/. ↩