Lenders Law

With the evolution of technology, the way of executing documents have also evolved. With the increasing demand for modern, convenient methods for entering into binding transactions, electronic agreements and electronic signature have gained a lot of momentum in recent years. Technological developments have not only changed the ways in which these transactions are entered into but the execution process has also revolutionised significantly. Speaking about e- agreements, while there has been various case laws, wherein email between parties has also been accepted as a binding contract, the validity and enforceability of click- wrap agreements still continues to be a cause of concern. RBI's Working Group on Digital Lending, in its recent report dated 18.11.2021, has made far reaching recommendations on digital lending. In this video, the expert will speak about implications of the report for industry players, and his learnings/ suggestions.

1) The NCLAT ruled on several cases related to IBC in July-August 2021, providing clarifications on key issues.  2) In one case, the NCLAT allowed the withdrawal of CIRP proceedings after full payment to operational creditors, noting that mere claims do not constitute default before the CoC is constituted.  3) In another case, the NCLAT held that bank guarantees are the responsibility of banks to release funds, minus amounts provided by CDs, as the assets of sureties are separate from CDs. 4) The NCLAT dismissed several intervenor applications filed prior to CoC constitution, noting the objective of IBC is revival, not just recovery.

1. Significant Supreme Court Judgments: (a) Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr. (15 March, 2021): The prohibition placed by the Parliament in Section 29A and Section 35(1)(f) of the Code must also attach itself to a scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, when the company is undergoing liquidation under the auspices of the Code. (b) Kalparaj Dharamshi & Anr. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr. (10 March, 2021):   It is sought to be urged that since there has been a material irregularity in exercise of powers by RP, NCLAT can interfere with the exercise of power by RP u/s 61(3)(ii) of IBC, however, in the instant case, the court observed that all actions of RP have the seal of approval of CoC, and in view of the paramount importance given to the decision of CoC, the Apex Court held that NCLAT cannot interfere with the commercial decision of the CoC. The legislative scheme, as interpreted by various de...