Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

The Supreme Court ruled that the Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors (MPID) Act 1999 prevails over the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Recovery of Debts Act 1993, denying secured creditors priority over assets attached under MPID. It also held that properties attached under MPID remain outside IBC moratorium, ensuring depositor claims take precedence over insolvency proceedings. The judgment reaffirms state legislative competence under List-II (State List) and upholds federalism by preventing central laws from overriding state-enacted investor protection measures. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the 2013 National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) scam, where around 13,000 investors lost approximately ₹5,600 crores due to payment defaults by trading members. NSEL, a commodit...

The Supreme Court held that appeals under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must strictly adhere to the 30-day limitation period, extendable by only 15 days upon showing "sufficient cause." The NCLAT cannot condone delays beyond this 45-day window, as the IBC’s time-bound framework overrides equitable considerations. Facts Of The Case: Tata Steel’s resolution plan for Rohit Ferro-Tech Ltd. was approved by the NCLT on 07.04.2022. Respondent No. 1, a minority shareholder, filed an appeal before the NCLAT on 23.05.2022 (e-filing) and 24.05.2022 (physical filing), seeking condonation of a 15-day delay. The NCLAT allowed the delay, citing Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the 30-day period ended on a court holiday (08.05.2022, a Sunday). Tata Steel challenged t...

Tag: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Supreme Court Says Depositors First, Banks Later in NSEL Scam Case: MPID Act Overrides SARFAESI

Supreme Court Clarifies IBC Appeal Deadlines: No Delay Condonation Beyond 45 Days