Month: February 2025

In legal proceedings, ensuring justice is served fairly and promptly is crucial, especially in winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), where the future of a company, its creditors, and employees are at stake. The Act outlines various grounds for winding up a company, including situations deemed ‘just and equitable’ by the court. While the winding-up process follows clear procedures and timelines, delays often arise due to third-party intervention applications (Interventions), where objections are raised before the statutory time for them to be heard. While third-party Interventions may be necessary in some cases, a ‘blanket / one size fits all’ kind of approach is not always appropriate.

This article explores the winding-up process under the Act, focusing on cases initiated by a contributory (generally a shareholder) before the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). It will also explore why Interventions should be disallowed in these specific proceedings, particularly before the advertisement of the petition is published, and how piecemeal Interventions can hinder the progress of the case.

The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is a powerful tool designed to resolve corporate insolvency. However, it is important to understand that CIRP is not the remedy if your welfare benefits are due, such as leave travel concession (LTC) or leave encashment. These unpaid benefits are classified as welfare claims, not operational debts, and therefore, cannot be used to initiate CIRP. The case of Kishore K. Lonkar v. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited provides critical clarity on this issue.