UNCITRAL Model Law: A Solution for Cross-Border Insolvency

/ Vedhas Law Journal

Puru Purohit

ABSTRACT

Cross-border insolvency presents unique challenges and opportunities in the globalised economy. This paper explores the complexities of cross-border insolvency, focusing on the legal frameworks and mechanisms that facilitate the resolution of insolvency cases involving multiple jurisdictions. It examines the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency and its adoption in various countries, highlighting the benefits and limitations of this approach. The paper also analyses recent case studies to illustrate the practical application of cross-border insolvency laws and the role of international cooperation in achieving equitable outcomes for creditors and debtors. By identifying key trends and emerging issues, this study aims to provide insights into the future development of cross-border insolvency regimes and their impact on global financial stability.

INTRODUCTION

A. Legal framework governing cross-border insolvency in India

Whenever a cross-border insolvency circumstance happens, it is oftentimes on the grounds that the account holder has resources or creditors in more than one ward, or on the grounds that particular bankruptcy procedures have been started in more than one country. Accordingly, the worldwide liquidation component is principally concerned with managing bankruptcy procedures that work outside the limits of the neighbourhood ward and the imperatives forced by its regulations and guidelines. 

Joint effort and coordination among courts and legal experts in different wards, as well as between the municipal law relevant in every country, and coherence and consistency in various nations’ indebtedness regulations and practices. In India, the essential piece of regulation overseeing indebtedness and liquidation processes is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. While the Code has taken significant steps toward aligning India’s indebtedness cycle with worldwide principles, it comes up short on component for controlling cross-border insolvency. Section 234 and 235 of the Code, which manages worldwide insolvency, contain two standards that might be appropriate in these conditions. The Central Government has the power to go into respective concurrences with outside nations to guarantee the Code’s requirement, as accommodated in Section 234 of the Code. A suit is filed to a court in a country where an understanding according to Section 234 has been placed empowers the Code’s arbitrating power to manage resources situated in that country in a specific way, as per Section 235 of the Code.[1]

Except for the Code’s previously mentioned section, India misses the mark on thorough lawful structure for cross-border insolvency. Along these lines, this Indian general set of laws administering cross-border insolvency misses the mark regarding tending to the key troubles that are created during the cycle and is filled with flaws, some of which are featured underneath.[2]

1. Section 234 and 235 of the Code have not been advised, and no activity has been done to execute them. Thus, the foundation of a cross-border insolvency system remains basically theoretical, with few significant advances taken around here.

2. One of the preconditions for the effective working of cross-border insolvency is India’s readiness to negotiate and afterwards go into two-sided concurrences with unfamiliar state-run administrations. It is difficult to exaggerate the time responsibility expected to arrange and conclude such arrangements, nor would it be a good idea for them to be undervalued.

3. There is no design set up to address cross-border insolvency issues where the borrower’s resources or lenders are arranged in a country.

4. Moreover, there is restricted direction accessible to bankruptcy experts with respect to the interaction and choices accessible when an Indian debt holder’s resources are situated in an alternate country, like the United States.

APPROACHES FOR APPLYING THE CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY LAWS: 

The utilisation of cross-border insolvency regulation ought to be seen from three perspectives: creditor friendly, debtor-friendly, who have not yet taken a situation on this subject or are as yet chipping away at their foreordained conventional way to deal with bankruptcy. The favourable to loan boss viewpoint contends that lenders ought not to be constrained to bear misfortunes because of borrowers’ defaults. The goal is to guarantee that, on the off chance that dangers to lenders are not relieved, comparable shields are produced for borrowers to guarantee that they participate in no way of behaving that vindicates them of obligation.[3] Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Australia all utilize this technique. This supportive account holder strategy empowers the indebted person to expand its resources to the place where they are adequate to finance conveyance in lieu of the different leasers’ cases. The regulation is utilized to survey how much and how much an expansion in the indebted person’s abundance ought to be allowed. The law’s goal is to protect the debt holder by permitting lenders to mediate.[4]France, Italy, and Spain are only a couple of the nations where this can be seen. To expand the financial effect of such a methodology, the fruitful rearrangement should be connected with the borrower’s ability to keep working the business as a going worry by collecting the essential amount of money. Attaining this equilibrium of approaches will empower banks to seek after creditors while ensuring that neither one of the gatherings experiences misfortune when an association arrives at its monetary base.[5]

GUIDELINES ON CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY PROPOSED BY THE INSOLVENCY LAW COMMITTEE

A. Features of the UNCITRAL Model Law and India’s draft Guidelines

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (“UNCITRAL”) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, embraced in 1997 (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”), gives authoritative direction to countries regarding the matter of cross-line bankruptcy. Because of its broad extension and application, the UNCITRAL Model Law has been regularly recommended as a total answer for settling cross-line Chapter 11 worries. The World Bank has perceived the significance of global parts in indebtedness procedures and has stressed that bankruptcy regulations ought to incorporate arrangements for jurisdictional standards, decision of regulation, coordination among courts in various nations, and acknowledgement of unfamiliar decisions. Furthermore, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) supports the reception of the UNCITRAL Model Law since it would give a compelling instrument to settling cross-line debates and cultivating collaboration and coordination among courts and other significant experts in different wards and Sections.[6]

The UNCITRAL Model Law is administered by the standards of Access, Recognition, Cooperation, and Coordination. The last three standards are commonly building up. Its goal is to offer global experts and leasers direct admittance to nearby courts, empowering them to take part in and additionally start home-grown indebtedness procedures against the account holder named in the understanding. As far as acknowledgement, the UNCITRAL Model Law takes into consideration the acknowledgement of unfamiliar procedures in home-grown courts and allows courts to decide the appropriate solutions for the award because of this acknowledgement and assurance. Moreover, the UNCITRAL Model Law advances powerful participation between indebtedness specialists and courts from various nations while likewise guaranteeing coordination to give the most effective administration of simultaneous methods in various locales. The UNCITRAL Model Law gives off an impression of being planned to help states in creating current, orchestrated, and even-handed indebtedness regulations to all the more actually resolve cross-line bankruptcy. It perceives and regards the qualifications between assorted public regulations and spotlights basically on upgrading joint effort and coordination among nations instead of on endeavouring to bring together their regulations.[7]

The Government of India has drafted a bunch of draft guidelines that remember a section for cross-line indebtedness named Part Z (“draft section”), trying to address the deficiencies of the present cross-line chapter 11 framework or the scarcity in that department. These proposed propositions depend on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s Model Law for certain minor changes. The Insolvency Law (“Committee”) proposed the reception of these guidelines in a report recorded on October 16, 2018.

The Committee proposed in its report that the draft section be taken on into the IBC. The draft part is explained into 29 Sections, most of which manage the General Provisions and Public Policy Exception, Access of Foreign Representatives and Creditors to the Adjudicating Authority, Recognition of a Foreign Proceeding and Relief, Cooperation with Foreign Courts and Foreign Representatives, Concurrent Proceedings, and a few random arrangements.

Several of the most basic parts of the draft section incorporate the following:

  1. Application of the draft chapter: Additionally, the proposed chapter applies only to corporate borrowers and makes no reference to individual debtors or personal insolvency. As a result, the government may determine that it is desirable to first monitor and evaluate the new chapter’s impact on corporate borrowers before extending it to individual debtors. The rationale for this distinction could be described as circumspect.
  2. Reciprocity: Therefore, only those unfamiliar states that have previously taken on the UNCITRAL Model Law into their municipal law overall sets of laws would be expected to respond. Thus, the issue of how to lead a cross-line indebtedness methodology in nations where poor person endorsed the UNCITRAL Model Law keeps on being open.
  1. Foreign main proceedings and foreign non-main proceedings: The draft part characterises two separate classifications of unfamiliar strategies, considering the differentiation between global primary procedures and worldwide non-principle procedures. An unfamiliar chief procedure is one that happens in the state wherein the corporate indebted person has most of its essential advantages in the corporate debt holder. As opposed to a primary procedure, continuing is an unfamiliar method other than an unfamiliar fundamental procedure that happens in a State where the corporate debt holder keeps a foundation. This differentiation is expected to fathom, decide, and delineate the degree of control that an unfamiliar ward might use over the Indian bankruptcy process, as well as the sorts and degree of help that the Adjudicating Authority might concede regarding such unfamiliar procedures.
  2. Determination of Centre of Main Interests (“COMI”): Section 14 of the draft part gives direction to deciding the COMI esteem. Except if the court decides in any case, this section lays out an assumption that the creditor’s enrolled office is the corporate debt holder’s chief business environment (COMI). Albeit this assumption is pertinent on the off chance that the corporate borrower’s enrolled office has not been migrated in somewhere around 90 days preceding the initiation of indebtedness procedures in that state, it is just appropriate on the off chance that the corporate debt holder’s enlisted office has not been moved in any less than 90 days before the beginning of bankruptcy procedures in that state. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority will direct an appraisal of the corporate borrower’s focal organization site to learn the corporate debt holder’s COMI (Corporate Management Information System). Furthermore, such an evaluation might incorporate elements indicated by the Central Government, and it ought to be directed such that outsiders, like the creditors’ leasers, can without much of a stretch check.[8]

Benefits and implications of implementing the draft chapter

It is significant that the UNCITRAL Model Law has been adopted by around 51 locales to address cross-border insolvency procedures. Along with the correspondence benefit appreciated by nations like Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States, among others, that have taken on and carried out the UNCITRAL Model Law, India would likewise profit from the accompanying advantages by embracing the UNCITRAL Model Law as the draft part and fusing it into its regulative structure:

  1. Economic benefits: Taking on a proficient cross-border insolvency regulation will work on the consistency and sureness of the speculation climate, making India a more alluring venture objective for unfamiliar lenders. 
  2.  Flexibility: The draft section perceives the qualifications between public bankruptcy regulations and takes into account changes from the UNCITRAL Model Law to oblige neighbourhood conditions while being consistent with home-grown indebtedness regulation.
  3.  Protection of domestic interest and public policy exception:  1. The proposed section accommodates the refusal of acknowledgement of unfamiliar procedures or the arrangement of other help, while doing so would be obviously in opposition to Indian public strategy as characterized by the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the public interest and public strategy are raised in importance, and cutoff points on unfamiliar lenders, creditors, and other closely involved individuals are forced to keep these gatherings from manhandling the law and legal cycle.
  4.  Precedence to domestic insolvency proceedings:  Systems brought under the Code as per the arrangements of the draft part are given priority. Subsequently, in the wake of starting techniques as per the Code, an Adjudicating Authority might decline to perceive any later procedures that conflict with the Code and were started as per the first part’s necessities.
  5.  Remedy in jurisdictions with reciprocity:  Various nations have taken on the UNCITRAL Model Law with an official correspondence necessity, and that implies that a nation will give acknowledgement, collaboration, and different advantages regarding Indian procedures provided that India has endorsed the UNCITRAL Model Law in some structure. Thus, endorsing the drafted section will go far toward empowering Indian lenders and specialists to get help from such responding states in more quickly settling cross-border insolvency issues.
  6.  Domestic and global mechanism for corporation: The proposed part lays out direct collaboration and coordination among courts and insolvency experts in both unfamiliar and homegrown locales. It is plausible that this methodology will help with foundational consistency, bringing about a more reliable line of legal choices and decisions, as well as quicker and more viable help in case of simultaneous procedures.

ANALYSIS OF THE CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY AS PER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (IBC), 2016 OF INDIA: 

The Central Government is qualified for go into concurrence with some other country as per the Code’s arrangements by applying the Code’s cross-line bankruptcy methodology. Section 234 sets a structure for such equal arrangements to be placed into to address such debates. It is given that these arrangements give direction on issues connecting with the organization of the creditors resources and those of the corporate debt holder’s very own underwriter who are situated in any country other than India with which a corresponding understanding of this nature is as of now active. 1 The focal government has the power, under Section 23 of the Code, to go into reciprocal concurrences with unfamiliar nations to complete the Code’s arrangements.[9] Indebtedness experts can send letters to the courts or settling specialists of nations with which they have complementary arrangements, mentioning that proper move be made against the defaulting account holder and that fundamental data in regards to the borrower’s resources situated in that nation be given, assuming the debt holder is in default. Because of these sections’ inadequacy in planning a suitable system, a lack of a coherent methodology will be used. Thus, clashes, imbalances, time utilization, and unusualness would emerge. The Sections are vague in regards to the ban’s status and the strategy for settling any gridlocks that might happen among unfamiliar and homegrown courts. Cost-cutting estimates should be utilized in cases brought under the Code, as well as in cases of countries with unfamiliar indebted individuals; however, there should be no complementary concurrence with that country.[10]         

THE REPORT ON INSOLVENCY LAW COMMITTEE ON CROSS BORDER INSOLVENCY: 

The October 2018 “Report on Insolvency Law Committee on Cross Border Insolvency as given by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India” advocates for the International Bankruptcy Court to take on the Model Law (IBC). It endeavours to determine the Committee’s essential worries about the fundamental variant of the Code managing cross-line bankruptcy that is presently under audit. Section 234 and 2354 of the Bankruptcy and Bankruptcy Code, individually, don’t fittingly address cross-line indebtedness procedures. The Committee has made ideas and proposed changes to the Model Law to guarantee that it is taken on actually in the Indian setting. The proposed Draft Z is made sense of more meticulously underneath.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment), 2020

The COVID-19 worldwide pandemic, which is unleashing devastation, is a consequence of the issues it has made. Around the world, countless individuals have been contaminated, and the number keeps on climbing day to day. Because of this monstrous worldwide debacle, for all intents and purposes the whole planet was put on guard. This lockdown significantly affected the economy, monetary business sectors, and gigantic organizations, with many compelled to close. It is accepted that this worldwide closure affected income on the lookout, bringing about an expansion in non-performing resources (NPAs), which at long last brought about bank, loan boss, and monetary establishment defaults on reimbursement.

The Government of India has endeavoured to change the 2016 indebtedness and liquidation act to safeguard corporate interests and salvage organizations that are nearly insolvency because of current obligations. The Indian government ordered this Ordinance in light of the country’s Atma Nirbhar monetary changes. As indicated by the introduction to the Ordinance, it was made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and other outrageous conditions to safeguard organizations from bankruptcy or liquidation.

Section 7, 9, and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure address monetary leasers, functional lenders, and corporate debt holders straightforwardly. These Section were recorded against corporate borrowers whose assortments were frozen for a time of somewhere around a half year. In the mean time, the time span starting 25 March 2020 and finishing 24 September 2020 is available, or incorporating extra time-frames can be extended. The suspension of Sections 7, 9 and 10 doesn’t have any significant bearing, notwithstanding, to any corporate default happening before to the 25th of March 2020, as those Sections state.[11]

Section of conflicts

In any endeavor to facilitate or advance cross-line the executives of indebted firms, every country’s liquidation code might take on entirely gone against positions on a few essential issues.

1. Gotten Creditors: Whether liquidation systems hinder the assurance of tied down banks’ inclinations corresponding to how any procedures are directed, and assuming this is the case, whether they are or alternately are not.

2. Corporate recovery programs: Closing-down techniques are on a very basic level unmistakable in reason and impact from insolvency procedures fixated on business restoration, which are utilized to exchange organizations and disseminate the returns to debt holders.

Three. The option to invalidate claims: While certain purviews require loan bosses with complementary debt holders to reimburse the debt holder in full, others grant banks to pay any installments owed to the debt holder until the indebted person requests everything in the procedures. There might be errors between locales that license set-offs, as well as conflicts about whether set-offs ought to be founded on an individual or a local Section.                                        

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 

To guarantee that the UNCITRAL Model Law is supported completely in Draft Z, changes and alterations are required. There are various worries that should be tended to before it very well may be executed accurately. These escape clauses should be addressed sufficiently assuming that India is to stay cutthroat in the requirement of cross-line indebtedness regulation, which is sure to decidedly affect the country’s economy later on. Worldwide liquidation mediation is generally tedious, wasteful, and expensive in its plan and activity. As recently said, the primary justification for this is on the grounds that every country has its own insolvency regulation, which is written in a wide range of dialects and complies with a wide range of customs and frameworks. With regard to settling such debates, an absence of consistency and consistency causes legitimate inconveniences. Among the most genuine of these contentions are those unsettling the acknowledgement and implementation of procedures and orders given by unfamiliar courts, the believability of cases brought by unfamiliar lenders, and inconsistencies between the separated regulations used to discard the resources of indebted individuals situated in various purviews. 1 Because indebtedness orders are first considered to be powerful for upholding financial decisions, it becomes hard to implement orders given by a few nations’ specialists. To augment the advantage to the account holder, nearby loan bosses, and global banks, help from skilled courts in numerous locales should be given during the debate goal process. 2 When looking at Draft Z, it is basic to remember that it doesn’t contain a meaning of what characterizes a ‘corporate borrower’ on the outer layer of the law. It is expected to assess the degree of the corporate borrower’s commitments to distinguish who ought to confront legitimate activity. The arrangements of the Firms Act 2013 should be separated and applied unequivocally to the organization of unregistered organisations, as they apply to both global and homegrown partnerships. This isn’t reflected in the Draft. The draft doesn’t characterize correspondence from top to bottom, and the report doesn’t give reasonable significance to ‘other closely involved individuals.’ The particular cure available to such people in homegrown bankruptcy procedures isn’t yet indicated. The scientist has made proposals for enhancements that ought to be made to guarantee that Draft Z is executed fittingly and that cross-line indebtedness matters in India are mediated and settled in an opportune manner. The theory that applying the UNCITRAL Model Law in India will further develop the IBC’s viability will be demonstrated right, provided that proper corrections to Draft Z are made during the cycle. Coming up next are the suggestions made:

Furthermore, the IBBI ought to foster a set of principles and disciplinary measures for unfamiliar delegates working inside its purview. IBBI ought to keep a rundown of all delegates who talk in the interest of the association. 

  • To stay away from superfluous uses related to notice conveyance, the manner by which notification should be conveyed should be characterized. Furthermore, arrangements for the dispersion of electronic notification and their distribution on the authority administrative power’s site will guarantee that they are open to abroad banks.
  • The Central Government ought to devise a technique for direct admittance to global leasers, as unfamiliar law offices are at present restricted from laying out workplaces in India, according to the decision in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji. As indicated by them, they can supply clients with a “fly in/fly out” prompt. 
  • Because of the shortfall of a definition for the expression “borrower” in the Model Law, just those substances determined in the Code as “corporate debt holders” ought to be viewed as while talking about the initiation of bankruptcy procedures. Since the Model Law has no unmistakable arrangement for deciding COMI and to forestall gathering shopping and misuse, courts ought to be engaged in settling on such choices.
  • The Code will give a think-back time of about three months for deciding COMI, notwithstanding the time expected for the Adjudicatory Authority to lead a proactive examination. This is significant because of the way that India’s implementation engineering is at present being made.
  • Arrangements ought to be made to allow COMI conclusions in situations when the enlisted office isn’t a similar Section as the COMI assurance. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (UNCITRAL) standards will be noticed.
  • Because of the absence of specific principles for settling these sorts of conflicts, a rundown of indicatives is expected to be given that will be used to assess the COMI.
  • There is a compelling reason need to lay out an exact date for benchmarking the COMI, as it ought to be assessed considering worldwide and homegrown circumstances.
  • It is fundamental to examine indebtedness business groupings until there is wide global agreement on the need of such a system. 
  • When giving access or acknowledgement, the Code should contain a prerequisite that all documentation be provided in English. This improves acquiring exhaustive data on the lawful activities brought against the account holder in any case. To allot these worries the right weight and need, it ought to be passed on to the settling authority’s attentiveness.
  • This archive proposes a timetable for pursuing a choice on an application for access and acknowledgement in thirty days or less. The Adjudicating Authority might give thirty extra days relying upon the grounds that the Adjudicating Authority considers reasonable.
  • Whenever an acknowledgment request is given, an arrangement for survey might be consolidated to guarantee that the getting court has the choice of reexamining its previous choice assuming the request’s grounds have been adjusted or disposed of totally.
  • No changes are fundamental because of the expansion of Article 17 to the Code. Therefore, the Model Law can be used to order arrangements that are the same.
  • It is likely that the Article 19 ability to allow interval alleviation might be excluded. The Code doesn’t vest the Adjudicating Authority with the power to grant impermanent help, as was previously the situation under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, bringing about a postponement in independent direction and the maltreatment of such interval alleviation, as was appropriately seen at that point.
  • As opposed to that, a ban, as characterized in Section 14 of the Code, ought to be naturally forced upon acknowledgement of an unfamiliar chief cycle, dependent upon every material exemption and constraint. It isn’t satisfactory to separate the whole of Article 20’s application. The Adjudicating Authority will not be enabled to change the cure, as doing so would vest the Authority with an unnecessary degree of circumspection.
  • As per Section 60(6) of the Code, the ban time frame ought to be wiped out from the calculation of the restriction time frame’s span. Article 21 accommodates “the cross examination of witnesses and the procurement of data and confirmation concerning the borrower and her business.” 
  • Article 21 accommodates “the cross-examination of witnesses and the obtaining of data and proof concerning the account holder and her business.” This is as of now accessible to the Insolvency Professional and shouldn’t be vested in the unfamiliar delegates, as the Code gives.
  • Because the draft guidelines incorporate no arrangement for resource circulation as a break alleviation, resource dispersion won’t occur between time help. The importance and need of adjusting the interests, everything being equal, should be unequivocally thought of and tended to.
  • The Adjudicating Authority should confirm that the decisions are appropriate before they can be additionally upheld as a consolation. In Draft Z. 6, the term ‘public approach’ is given an expansive translation and is characterized as follows: It is fundamental to characterize the expression “public strategy” exactly. Assuming any such action that is clearly in opposition to the country’s public strategy happens, the mediating body will tell the Central Government, which will can make a suo moto move against such demonstrations. 
  • Because the country’s insolvency framework is in its early stages and the Adjudicating Authority needs insight in imparting and organizing with global courts.
  • Given the component’s earliest stages, the Central Government ought to lay out a fitting power to help the Adjudicatory Authority in imparting notification and speaking with the suitable unfamiliar courts, subsequently mitigating the Adjudicatory Authority’s weight and advancing quick and proficient independent direction. To look for help and data, the settling authority will contact the abroad agents straightforwardly. A statement considering joint hearings is essential in the case of various simultaneous procedures. It is arranged that Articles 26 and 27 be taken on unaltered. Neighbourhood courts will have authority over how joint effort should be completed, and that way will be expressed in the previously mentioned articles of arrangement.
  • Articles 28 and 29 should be acknowledged completely. This part will be discarded and thought will be given to the assessment of the strategies set out in Article 20.

[1] R.W.Harmer, The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 6 INTERNATIONAL INSOLVENCY REVIEW 145-146 (1997).

[2] ASHISH MUKHIJIA, INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE OF INDIA (2018).

[3] In re PSI Net Inc., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, No. 01-CL-4155 (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York).

[4] BOB WESSELS, CROSS BORDER INSOLVENCY LAW: INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND COMENTARY(2007).

[5] FLETCHER, INSOLVENCY IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES, 473 (2009).

[6] JASON J. KILBORN, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY MATTERS (2009).

[7] MICHAEL VEDER, CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS AND SECURITY RIGHTS (2004).

[8] NEIL HANNAN, CROSS BORDER INSOLVNCY: THE ENACTMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW (2017).

[9] Nidhi Shetye, International Insolvency: An Indian Perspective On Cross-Border Treatment Of Cases, 39 FORDHAM INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (2015).

[10] Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji & Ors. AIR 2012 Mad 124 (Supreme Court of India).

[11] Nidhi Shetye, International Insolvency: An Indian Perspective On Cross-Border Treatment Of Cases, 39 FORDHAM INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (2015).

Leave a Reply