In the recent Supreme Court proceedings regarding 𝙈𝙤𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙩 𝙄𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙩, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N. Venkataraman made an argument emphasizing that while business creditors must remain vigilant about their claims during insolvency proceedings, this expectation cannot be equally applied to statutory authorities. He highlighted that statutory demands are part of the corporate debtor's records and should be addressed by the Resolution Professional (RP) during the insolvency process.
The ASG pointed out that statutory authorities operate on a nationwide level and have a broader mandate compared to individual business creditors. This operational scope means that statutory bodies may not always be in a position to monitor every corporate debtor's situation closely. Therefore, he argued that it is essential for these authorities to ensure their claims are included in the records maintained by the RP, as these liabilities form an integral part of understanding the complete financial picture of the corporate debtor.
Furthermore, ASG Venkataraman sought a reexamination of the 𝙂𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙝𝙮𝙖𝙢 𝙈𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙧𝙖 judgment, which established that all creditors, including governmental entities, are bound by an approved resolution plan. He contended that while business creditors must actively assert their claims during insolvency proceedings, statutory authorities should have a distinct status due to their regulatory role and responsibilities.
This distinction raises important questions about how various types of claims should be treated under insolvency law. The ASG's arguments underscore the need for clarity on how statutory claims are managed during insolvency proceedings and suggest that there may be a need for adjustments in how creditor rights are interpreted within this framework. The outcome of this discussion could significantly influence future interpretations of obligations under India's insolvency laws.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
While the legislative framework of criminal justice has undergone structural changes, the core principles remain steadfast. These foundational tenets continue to be upheld through judicial precedents, ensuring consistency in legal interpretation and application. The Supreme Court, through its judgments, bridges the transition from IPC/CrPC to BNS/BNSS, reinforcing that while the nomenclature and procedural aspects may evolve, the essence of justice remains...
Supreme Court, today, granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia (𝗕𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗕𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘀) in connection with multiple FIRs filed against him over alleged obscene remarks made on the YouTube show ‘𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗚𝗼𝘁 𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁’.
In a recent Judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that obtaining prior approval of the Competition Commission of India is mandatory before presenting a Resolution Plan involving a combination to the Committee of Creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).