Out-of-court, debtor-in-control process to hasten resolution of insolvency cases
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was tabled in parliament on Tuesday, has proposed the 'creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process', under which a resolution process can be initiated on approval of 51% of the financial creditors. However, the management of the company continues to be vested with the existing board of directors of the company under the supervision of the resolution professional appointed by financial creditors.
The delay in getting approval of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is the biggest reason for delay of the whole resolution process. In order to address this issue, the Bill proposes that a creditor-initiated resolution process can be initiated without the need for NCLT approval.
'The process contains provisions for approaching the adjudicating authority at different stages but not for the initiation of the process unless objected by the corporate debtor,' says Surendra Raj, partner, Grant Thornton.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
9 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
NCLAT clears way for insolvency proceedings against Supertech Realtors, upholds NCLT order
New Delhi, Aug 14 (PTI) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has cleared the way for insolvency proceedings against Supertech Realtors, the developer of the Supernova project, which comprises residential apartments, offices, retail space, and a luxury hotel. NCLAT has cleared the way for insolvency proceedings against Supertech Realtors, the developer of the Supernova project (Representative photo)(Pixabay) The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Appellate Tribunal has upheld the previous order passed by the Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had, on June 12, 2024, directed the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) over a petition filed by Bank of Maharashtra, claiming default. A two-member NCLAT bench said the revised proposal submitted by its promoter, Ram Kishore Arora, for settlement has not been accepted by the Consortium of Banks. "We are of the view that the present is a case where the resolution of the Corporate Debtor (Supertech Realtors) has to be undertaken as per the I&B Code and CIRP Regulations, 2016, in accordance with law. We, thus, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitting the Section 7 application and dismissing the appeal," said NCLAT. The appellate tribunal also gave a go-ahead to the interim resolution professional appointed by NCLT to constitute the CoC (Committee of Creditors) and proceed with the CIRP in accordance with the law. Supertech Realtors is a subsidiary of realty firm Supertech, which is also facing insolvency proceedings along with some other group companies. Supertech Realtors is developing the Supernova project at a cost of ₹2,326.14 crore on a land measuring 70,002 square metres at Sector 94, Noida. As per the plans, the Supernova project will have 80 floors and will be the tallest building in Delhi-NCR at a height of 300 metres. Earlier, the NCLAT had put the process of constitution of the lender body CoC on hold on July 3, 2024, over Arora's plea. He had not raised any dispute. Regarding the debt and default of Bank of Maharashtra, the realty firm -- with assistance from investor M/s Kotak Advisors --submitted a settlement proposal offering 75 per cent of the running ledger book balance. However, this was rejected by the consortium of lenders. Meanwhile, the NCLAT has been periodically extending its interim order staying the formation of CoC, as Arora has pleaded that 80 per cent of the project is complete and investors have offered to infuse funds for its construction. Finally, the consortium of banks also rejected a revised OTS proposal submitted by Arora with Parmesh Construction Company as Co-Developer, after which NCLAT moved ahead. The appellate tribunal also declined Ram Kishore Arora's plea to challenge the decision of the Financial Creditor not accepting the OTS (one time settlement) proposal submitted by him. "We are of the view that reasons which persuaded the Banks not to accept the OTS proposal cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Present is not a case, where an application filed under 12A for withdrawal of CIRP has not been approved by CoC with 90 per cent vote share, which decision has been held to be subject to judicial review on limited grounds that the decision of CoC is arbitrary," said a 32-page-long NCLAT order. The Bank of Maharashtra submitted that the dues of all Consortium Banks are above ₹990 crore, and the Banks in their Joint Lenders' Meeting held on June 13, 2025, have deliberated on all aspects of the matter and decided not to accept the OTS. Arora further claimed that he was not informed about the rejection of the OTS proposal. On this banks replied that the decision of the Consortium was communicated by Union Bank of India, which is the lead bank of the consortium, on July 15, 2025, and a copy of the letter has already been brought on record by them in their compilation submitted before NCLAT. For the project, Supertech Realtors approached a consortium of lenders led by Union Bank of India seeking financial assistance of ₹7,35.58 crore. Out of this, it had also requested a credit facility of ₹150 crore, which was granted by Bank of Maharashtra. In December 2012, a term loan of ₹150 crore was granted. The term loan was repayable in quarterly installments in the consolidated door-to-door tenor for 10 years and 4 months by March 2023. However, Supertech Realtors failed to maintain financial discipline and defaulted in properly maintaining the said accounts in addition to committing other breaches and violations of the credit limit, leading to the accumulation of huge outstanding.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
NCLAT clears way for insolvency proceedings against Supertech Realtors, upholds NCLT order
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ) has cleared the way for insolvency proceedings against Supertech Realtors , the developer of the Supernova project , which comprises residential apartments, offices, retail space, and a luxury hotel. Independence Day 2025 Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji gave India its own currency Swadeshi 2.0: India is no longer just a market, it's a maker The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Appellate Tribunal has upheld the previous order passed by the Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had, on June 12, 2024, directed the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) over a petition filed by Bank of Maharashtra , claiming default. A two-member NCLAT bench said the revised proposal submitted by its promoter, Ram Kishore Arora, for settlement has not been accepted by the Consortium of Banks. "We are of the view that the present is a case where the resolution of the Corporate Debtor (Supertech Realtors) has to be undertaken as per the I&B Code and CIRP Regulations, 2016, in accordance with law. We, thus, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitting the Section 7 application and dismissing the appeal," said NCLAT. The appellate tribunal also gave a go-ahead to the interim resolution professional appointed by NCLT to constitute the CoC (Committee of Creditors) and proceed with the CIRP in accordance with the law. Live Events Supertech Realtors is a subsidiary of realty firm Supertech, which is also facing insolvency proceedings along with some other group companies. Supertech Realtors is developing the Supernova project at a cost of Rs 2,326.14 crore on a land measuring 70,002 square metres at Sector 94, Noida. As per the plans, the Supernova project will have 80 floors and will be the tallest building in Delhi-NCR at a height of 300 metres. Earlier, the NCLAT had put the process of constitution of the lender body CoC on hold on July 3, 2024, over Arora's plea. He had not raised any dispute. Regarding the debt and default of Bank of Maharashtra , the realty firm -- with assistance from investor M/s Kotak Advisors --submitted a settlement proposal offering 75 per cent of the running ledger book balance. However, this was rejected by the consortium of lenders. Meanwhile, the NCLAT has been periodically extending its interim order staying the formation of CoC, as Arora has pleaded that 80 per cent of the project is complete and investors have offered to infuse funds for its construction. Finally, the consortium of banks also rejected a revised OTS proposal submitted by Arora with Parmesh Construction Company as Co-Developer, after which NCLAT moved ahead. The appellate tribunal also declined Ram Kishore Arora's plea to challenge the decision of the Financial Creditor not accepting the OTS (one time settlement) proposal submitted by him. "We are of the view that reasons which persuaded the Banks not to accept the OTS proposal cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Present is not a case, where an application filed under 12A for withdrawal of CIRP has not been approved by CoC with 90 per cent vote share, which decision has been held to be subject to judicial review on limited grounds that the decision of CoC is arbitrary," said a 32-page-long NCLAT order. The Bank of Maharashtra submitted that the dues of all Consortium Banks are above Rs 990 crore, and the Banks in their Joint Lenders' Meeting held on June 13, 2025, have deliberated on all aspects of the matter and decided not to accept the OTS. Arora further claimed that he was not informed about the rejection of the OTS proposal. On this banks replied that the decision of the Consortium was communicated by Union Bank of India , which is the lead bank of the consortium, on July 15, 2025, and a copy of the letter has already been brought on record by them in their compilation submitted before NCLAT. For the project, Supertech Realtors approached a consortium of lenders led by Union Bank of India seeking financial assistance of Rs 7,35.58 crore. Out of this, it had also requested a credit facility of Rs 150 crore, which was granted by Bank of Maharashtra. In December 2012, a term loan of Rs 150 crore was granted. The term loan was repayable in quarterly installments in the consolidated door-to-door tenor for 10 years and 4 months by March 2023. However, Supertech Realtors failed to maintain financial discipline and defaulted in properly maintaining the said accounts in addition to committing other breaches and violations of the credit limit, leading to the accumulation of huge outstanding.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Resist American pressure but reform Indian agriculture
The partnership between the world's two largest democracies has repeatedly stumbled on one issue: agricultural market access. Trump wants India to open its doors to American farm products—from dairy, poultry and maize to apples, almonds and genetically modified crops. India resisted, wary of destabilizing its rural economy. This defiance is economically prudent and socially necessary. But shielding farmers from unfair competition is only half the battle. Without structural reform, Indian agriculture will remain inefficient and fiscally draining, slowing and even strangling our economic transformation. The US spends billions annually to prop up its agricultural sector through direct payments, crop insurance subsidies and price supports. Its 2018 Farm Bill alone authorized $867 billion over 10 years. These subsidies allow American producers to sell abroad at artificially low prices without fear of market volatility, the same practice that the US accuses China of. Also Read: Indian agriculture and dairy sectors are strong enough to withstand US tariff vagaries If India allowed unrestricted imports of such products, domestic prices for staples like dairy, poultry and maize might collapse. A 10-15% drop in farm-gate prices could wipe out the livelihood overnight of millions of small farmers—most with less than two hectares of farmland. The ripple effects would hit rural incomes, weaken demand, disrupt rural credit and threaten jobs in sectors that range from logistics and cold storage to food processing and retail. Our strategic autonomy is also at stake. A nation dependent on imported staples will be vulnerable to price shocks, export bans and geopolitical pressure. The covid pandemic and the Ukraine war showed how volatile global commodity markets can become. Maintaining the domestic production of essential foods is not just economic prudence—it is national security. Yet, barring unfair imports must not mean defending the status quo. Agriculture employs 42% of India's workforce but contributes only 18% of GDP. The average agricultural worker produces less than one-sixth the output of a worker in industry or services. We must shift a significant share of our workforce to other sectors. Also Read: Sow wisely: India can reap a lot more from its agricultural sector Politically-driven subsidies sustain this inefficiency. India spends over ₹4.5 trillion annually on farm-related subsidies—on fertilizers, power, irrigation and procurement under the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system. The rural employment guarantee scheme adds to the bill. While often justified as poverty relief, these subsidies distort cropping patterns, harm the environment and crowd out investment in infrastructure and research. The MSP system entrenches overproduction of wheat and rice, depleting groundwater and making India reliant on costly imports of pulses and edible oils. Fertilizer subsidies encourage overuse, harming soil health and straining India's finances. Power subsidies promote inefficient irrigation and groundwater depletion. Subsidies rarely reach the poorest farmers in full, yet take a large share of agricultural budgets. Farm fragmentation compounds the problem. With farms shrinking below two hectares, mechanization and productivity gains are difficult. Land-leasing restrictions in many states block consolidation and efficient land use. Also Read: In charts: Why agriculture and dairy are sticking points in the India-US trade deal A competitive agricultural sector would thrive in an open market system by opting to compete, not hide behind tariff barriers or subsidies. To safeguard farmers, India must embrace reforms. These include: Adjusting MSP procurement to promote high-value commodities, easing water stress and improving nutrition; introducing enabling policies to encourage consolidation, mechanization and economies of scale; shifting from input subsidies to targeted investment in irrigation, cold storage and rural roads; building farm-to-market linkages and export-oriented clusters to raise incomes and create rural jobs; and expanding water-efficient irrigation, drought-resistant crops and regenerative agriculture practices. These reforms would enable Indian agriculture to compete on quality, cost and reliability, thus making market opening less contentious. India should not reject all agricultural imports, but what we import must be on our terms—under a calibrated tariff and quota system that protects vulnerable sectors while allowing targeted liberalization. Also Read: US puts hard terms on table, presents a take-it-or-leave-it offer; demands access to agriculture, dairy, pharma Any farm sector negotiations with the US should rest on three principles: A level-playing field: Imports from countries with high subsidies must face countervailing duties or quotas. Phased liberalization: Market opening should be gradual to allow farmers to adapt. Mutual benefit: Agricultural concessions must be balanced with gains in services or other competitive sectors. It's a reasonable stance. The US maintains tariff and non-tariff barriers while pressing others to open markets. Free trade can't mean a free rein for subsidized dumping. In trade policy, demands are often treated as bargaining chips. But in agriculture, the stakes go beyond trade balances—they involve the livelihoods of hundreds of millions, rural stability and food security. India must protect farmers from subsidized US competition, but it must not protect inefficiency. We need a defensive trade policy paired with aggressive reforms. India must recognize that perpetual state subsidies are as harmful as US tariffs. Both need to go. The author is a strategy and public policy professional. His X handle is @prasannakarthik
