https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389122 The SC held that Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inserted by the 2019 Amendment Act, was manifestly arbitrary because it revived an older automatic-stay regime contrary to the object of the 2015 amendments and reintroduced delay and uncertainty in enforcement; the beneficial 2015 amendments were therefore held applicable to court proceedings initiated after 23.10.2015. It further held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a resolution framework, not a debt recovery mechanism, so it could not be read down to pursue government bodies or statutory authorities as corporate debtors, and no relief was granted on that challenge. The challenge to the NITI Aayog scheme condition requiring an additional 10% annual bank guarantee was also rejected. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389122 The SC held that Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inserted by the 2019 Amendment Act, was manifestly arbitrary because it revived an older automatic-stay regime contrary to the object of the 2015 amendments and reintroduced delay and uncertainty in enforcement; the beneficial 2015 amendments were therefore held applicable to court proceedings initiated after 23.10.2015. It further held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a resolution framework, not a debt recovery mechanism, so it could not be read down to pursue government bodies or statutory authorities as corporate debtors, and no relief was granted on that challenge. The challenge to the NITI Aayog scheme condition requiring an additional 10% annual bank guarantee was also rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389122