UNDERSTANDING THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2019

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was the product of the pre globalisation era. Post liberalization the Indian Market has grown with an unprecedented pace currently touching the $2.8 Trillion mark and is aspiring to cross the $ 5 Trillion mark by 2024. The aspirations of the customers and the choices available to the customers in India have also changed accordingly. India one of the fastest growing e commerce market with an expected market size of $ 84 billion by 2021. The emergence of global supply chains, rise in international trade and the rapid development of e-commerce have led to new delivery systems for goods and services and have provided new opportunities for consumers. Equally, this has rendered the consumer vulnerable to new forms of unfair trade and unethical business practices. With the high penetration of media and internet, misleading advertisements, tele-marketing, multi-level marketing, direct selling and e-tailing has posed new challenges to consumer protection. It was high time that the law for consumer protection is also changed to meet the requirements of the present economic situations and the market. The Consumer protection Act, 2019 which was notified on 9th of this month has endeavoured to cover the gaps under the existing framework in order to facilitate the requirements of the growing consumer market in India and to address the myriad and constantly emerging vulnerabilities of the consumer.

Who is a consumer?

The new Act gives a broader answer to the question as to who is a “Consumer”. It has outgrown the traditional concept of a physical market and has brought into its ambit the transactions happening in the e tail world. It now has included the customers of offline and online transactions made either through electronic means, teleshopping, multi-level marketing or direct selling. E commerce sites, online market places and online auction sites have also been expressly included under the scope of the Act. A broader definition given to the term ‘goods’, has in turn further outstretched the boundaries of the definition of a ‘consumer’.

Consumer’s Rights

Under the earlier Act the rights of the consumers were only found as a passing reference under the objects of the Consumer Protection Councils. The amended Act has defined six specific consumer’s rights including the right to -

1. be protected against marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and property;
2. be informed of the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services;
3. be assured of access to a variety of goods or services at competitive prices;
4. be heard and assured that the consumer’s interest will receive due consideration at appropriate fora;
5. seek redressal against unfair or restrictive trade practices; and
6. Consumer awareness.

Establishment of Central Consumer Protection Authority                   

The 2019 Act has created a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) as a regulatory body in the line of the other sector Regulators like TRAI, FSSAI etc.  to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumers.  It will regulate matters related to violation of consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and misleading advertisements.  The CCPA will have an investigation wing, headed by a Director-General, which may conduct inquiry or investigation into such violations.

 CCPA will carry out the following functions, including:

1. inquiring into violations of consumer rights, investigating and launching prosecution at the appropriate forum;
2. passing orders to recall goods or withdraw services that are hazardous, reimbursement of the price paid, and discontinuation of the unfair trade practices, as defined in the Act;
3. issuing directions to the concerned trader/ manufacturer/ endorser/ advertiser/ publisher to either discontinue a false or misleading advertisement, or modify it;
4. imposing penalties; and
5. issuing safety notices to consumers against unsafe goods and services.

Pro active Steps to curb misleading Advertisements

Considering the ever increasing presence of media and its influence the new Act intends to cover all kinds of audio or visual publicity and representations made in electronic media, Internet and websites also under its ambit. It is a prevalent market practice to engage eminent personalities or celebrities for the endorsement of products. Such personalities are deployed to make advertisements which are often misleading by making unrealistic claims. However, when some unfair trade practices are exposed these celebrity endorsers are quick to disassociate themselves with the products/companies they were hitherto representing. It was felt that the existing laws are not deterrent enough to discourage manufacturers or publishers from using such personalities for misleading advertisements and hence some stringent provisions have been introduced under the 2019 Act to tackle misleading advertisement, as well as to fix liability on endorsers/celebrities.

Under the new Act CCPA may impose, in the case of a first time offence, a penalty on a manufacturer or an endorser of up to Rs 10 lakh and imprisonment for up to two years for a false or misleading advertisement.  In case of a subsequent offence, the fine may extend to Rs 50 lakh and imprisonment of up to five years. CCPA can also prohibit the endorser of a misleading advertisement from endorsing that particular product or service for a period of up to one year. For every subsequent offence, the period of prohibition may extend to three years.  An express responsibility has been thus imposed on the endorsers to exercise due diligence to verify the veracity of the claims made in the advertisement regarding the product or service that is being endorsed.

Unfair Contracts

In the present market scenario, there will several occasions where a consumer will have to execute a click wrap contract for making a purchase through an online marketplace or while availing an online service, including a financial service. Quite often these contracts are heavily one sided protecting the interest of the vendor or the electronic service provider and the consumer will not have any chances for negotiation or bargain for the modification of the terms of such contracts. Keeping in mind this dilemma of the present day consumers the 2019 Act enables them to seek remedy under the statute against such unfair contracts. To avoid any ambiguities as to what shall qualify as an “unfair contract”, the Act itself has provided a definition for the same. By virtue of Section 2(46) any contract which - 

1. Requires a consumer to make manifestly excessive security deposits for the performance of any contractual obligations;
2. Imposes a penalty for the breach of contract which is wholly disproportionate to the loss occurred;
3. Refuses to accept early repayment of debts on payment of applicable penalty
4. Entitles a party to a contract to terminate such contracts unilaterally without reasonable cause;
5. Enables a party to assign the contract to the detriment of the other party who is a consumer without his consent;
6. Imposes on a consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or conditions which puts the consumer to a disadvantage,

shall be considered as an “unfair contract”.

All the complaints against the Unfair Contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs. 10 Crores, will have to be filed before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. Complaints with respect to such contracts where the consideration exceeds Rupees Ten Crores will have to be preferred before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

Data Protection

The Act has brought in an aspect of Data Protection also under the scope of the Act by making any disclosure of personal information given in confidence by a consumer an unfair trade practice, unless such disclosure has been made in accordance with the provision of any law at the time being in force.

Product Liability

The New Act has introduced the concept of product liability into its ambit and brings within its scope, the product manufacturer, product service provider and product seller, for any claim for compensation. The term ‘product seller’ is defined to include a person who is involved in placing the product for a commercial purpose and as such would include e-commerce platforms as well. The plea that e-commerce platforms merely act as ‘platforms’ or ‘aggregators’ will not hence forth be accepted as a valid defense in consumer disputes. There are increased liability risks for manufacturers as compared to product service providers and product sellers, considering that under the New Act, manufacturers will be liable in product liability action even where he proves that he was not negligent or fraudulent in making the express warranty of a product. Certain exceptions have been provided under the New Act from liability claims, such as, that the product seller will not be liable where the product has been misused, altered or modified.

Modified Disputes Redressal Mechanism

The District Consumer Forum has been revamped as District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a significant increase in its monetary jurisdiction. Under the 2019 Act the District Commission has been empowered to determine matters upto a value of Rupees One Crore. A similar increase has been brought in with respect to the monetary jurisdiction of the State Commission and the National Commission also.

Forum	PecuniaryJurisdiction  (Under 2019 Act)	Pecuniary Jurisdiction   (Under 1986 Act)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission	Upto Rupees One Crore	Upto Rupees 20 Lakhs
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission	More than Rs One Crore upto Rupees Ten Crores	Above Rs Twenty Lakhs upto Rs One Crore
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission	More than Rupees Ten Crores	Above Rupees One Crore

However the amended Act has moved away from the traditional approach for computing the pecuniary jurisdiction. The earlier Act was considering, for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction, the ‘value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any claimed’. Whereas the provisions of the 2019 Act is considering the value of the goods or services paid as consideration in ascertaining the pecuniary jurisdiction. It therefore is giving emphasis to the actual consideration paid and not the total value of the goods or services. This may be relevant and shall make a serious difference in transactions like a real estate purchase where the purchaser might have made payment of only a percentage of the total value in terms of the construction agreement. The present position thus enables a purchaser of a flat to approach the District Commission, (where the consideration paid is less than Rupees One Crore) and shall obviate the hardship of travelling all the way to the State Capitals to depose before the State Commission.  

Place of Filing of Complaints

Unlike the current practice of filing of complaints at the place of purchase or where the seller has its registered office address the New Act provides flexibility to the consumer to file complaints with the jurisdictional consumer forum located at the place of residence or work of the consumer.  This provision assumes importance in the light of the fact that the Act has brought the electronic transactions especially the e commerce transactions also within its ambit where the service provider or seller may be situated at any corner of the world.       

Resolution through Alternate Dispute Resolution

The New Act provides for mediation as an Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism. The 2019 Act has introduced into its framework a remedy by way of Mediation where an option shall be provided to the parties either at the time of admission or even at a later stage to resolve the dispute by way of mediation.  A Consumer Mediation Cell has been created under the Act for this purpose attached to the District, State and National Commissions. Any agreement or settlement reached through such mediation shall be recorded and no appeal shall lie against such an order.

Digitalisation of the Proceedings

Taking into consideration of the changed market conditions the Act is now providing for the e filing of complaints and online payment of the fees. Further as a measure for avoiding delays and also as an effort to reduce the hardships of the parties the new Act is providing for hearing and/or examining parties through video-conferencing. 

Power of Review

Under the existing framework the aggrieved parties did not have any recourse other than filing an appeal to the State or National Commission to set right the errors made in the order of the District Forum /State Commission. Under the 2019 Act the District and State Commissions have been vested with the power to review its own Orders where an application is filed for within 30 days of such Order.

Appeals

The amended Act has raised increased the window for preferring an appeal against the order of the District Commission from 30 days to 45 days which shall be aiding the consumers particularly those who are illiterate or are residing in remote areas to prefer an appeal against the decision of the District Commission.

Even though the window for preferring an Appeal against the Order of the State commission has remained the same i.e., within a period of 30 days from the date of Order an implied restriction has been placed on the power of the National Commission to condone any delay.

The 1st Proviso to Section 19 dealing with Appeals before the National Commission under the old Act goes like “Provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing it within that period”.

It can be seen that under this framework, condonation of delay was the rule and refusal to condone any delay involved was considered as an exception. However a subtle change has been brought into the language by modifying this proviso in the following manner under Section 51 of the new Act reversing this position:

 “Provided that the National Commission shall not entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days unless it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.”

This change might have been brought in considering the fact that the District and State Commissions have been vested with the power of Review. It is pertinent to note that the new Act specifically provides that an appeal shall lie to the National Commission from any order passed in appeal by any State Commission, if the National Commission is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

WHETHER ALL IS WELL UNDER IBC REGIME?

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a comprehensive framework covering all the Insolvency and Bankruptcy issues of the companies in distress, bankrupt individuals and Partnerships (other than financial firms) seeking to revive their financial viability in an expeditious manner. IBC was the result of the revelation that time is the essence in a corporate insolvency resolution, which was an invaluable lesson learnt from the failure of SICA. Hence the IBC framework envisages a time bound insolvency resolution procedure which is to be completed within a time frame of 330 days, the failure of which shall invoke the liquidation procedure inevitably under the non-intrusive oversight of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Under the earlier regime, the corporate debtor could have indefinitely continued to enjoy the protection given under Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 or under other such enactments which has now been forsaken. The intention of the introduction of the Code was to streamline and ease the process of corporate insolvency aiming for a time bound insolvency resolution thereby preventing the erosion of the enterprise value of the Corporate Debtor in distress and promote ease of doing business in the country.

By replacing the concept of ‘debtor in possession’ with the ‘creditor in control’ IBC has put its entire faith on the commercial wisdom of the Creditors and the integrity of the Insolvency Resolution professionals. Under the Code the management and control of assets of the debtor are handed over to an Insolvency Professional (IP) who is responsible for operating the debtor’s enterprise as a going concern and managing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) besides performing other crucial functions. It proceeds with an intrinsic assumption that financial creditors are fully informed about the viability of the corporate debtor and feasibility of the proposed resolution plan and hence has not provided any ground to challenge the “commercial wisdom” of the individual financial creditors or their collective decision before the adjudicating authority making it non-justiciable. IBC is being viewed as the new mantra for pulling down the NPA mound which is otherwise growing steadily like the nose of Pinocchio.

Even though the Code was enacted with an aim for a speedy resolution of the insolvency process the ground realities are telling a different story altogether. When one critically examines the progress that the IBC regime has made during the past three years it can be seen that the system has failed to meet the expectation of the financial market and the resolution process is exhibiting signs of sluggishness, which was the malady of the previous regime IBC intended to resolve. As on February 2019, i.e., within 27 months of operationalisation of the IBC, as many as 14,000 applications had been filed for initiation of CIRPs under the IBC. From the data available with IBBI, it is understood that, as on March 31, 2019, the commencement of CIRP has been ordered only with respect to 1858 Corporate Debtors.[i] As per the provisions under IBC, the NCLT should, within 14 days of receipt of an application for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process, admit or reject the application. Due to the large number of cases pending before the NCLT, this time line stipulated under the Code is not generally being adhered to. There are several cases where the admission itself is taking more than 6 months from the date of receipt of the application.

Similarly there are scores of instances where the stipulated time period for completion of the CIRP process[ii] were stretched to more than double of the prescribed limit. For instance the Essar Steel case was pending more than 600 days after its admission before the NCLT. It is reported that about 32% of the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cases have surpassed the time ceiling of 270 days (which existed before the 2019 Amendment), with an additional 20% having crossed the six-month deadline.[iii]

The Challenge of Dual Responsibilities

 It needs to be understood that the NCLT Benches are simultaneously acting as the judicial forum for both the matters under the Code and the Companies Act 2013. The Company Law Boards (CLBs) used to receive around 4000 new cases annually[iv] which are now coming before the NCLT Benches. Further, with the formation of the NCLTs all the cases which were pending before the Company Law Boards (CLB) have been transferred to the NCLTs. As of March 2015, there were around 4,200 pending CLB cases which were transferred to NCLTs.[v] By virtue of the transitional provisions of IBC several cases which were pending before the BIFR or AAIFR for rehabilitisation have also been transferred to NCLT[vi]. In view of the same we can see that the NCLTs have started functioning with an inherited backlog of cases. It is pertinent to note here that to the exception of New Delhi and Mumbai, all other NCLT locations including Chennai, Bengaluru and Chandigarh are having only a Bench or two that may not be sufficient to give justice to the matters that come up for their consideration.[vii]

Judicial Intervention

Some of the judicial interpretations made with respect to the timelines stipulated under the Code without giving due consideration to the underlying legislative intent have also stifled the concept of time bound resolution. The NCLAT had, in one of its decisions, held that if an application is filed by the ‘Resolution Professional’ or the ‘Committee of Creditors’ or ‘any aggrieved person’ for justified reasons, it is always open to the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal to ‘exclude certain period’ for the purpose of counting the total period of 270 days, if the facts and circumstances justify exclusion, in unforeseen circumstances[viii]. Such interpretations made by the adjudicating authorities greatly dilute and undermine the concept of timely resolution which is one of the cornerstones of the Code.

Legislative Gaps

Apart from these infrastructural handicaps, there have been certain legislative gaps under the Code leading to presumptions and interpretations beyond the legislative intent. This lack of clarity has on many occasions dragged the matters for judicial review leading to prolonging litigations. For instance the Code has originally envisaged a waterfall mechanism for distribution of proceeds from the sale of liquidation assets. However it did not provide for a similar waterfall for distribution of realisation under a resolution plan amongst the creditors. The distribution of realisation under resolution plans has been a bone of contention in several CIRPs and caused prolonged litigation and undue delay in completion of the process, occasionally disturbing pre-insolvency entitlements of creditors.

Similarly though the commercial decisions of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) are not generally open to any judicial review by the Adjudicating Authority, the question as to what is commercial and what is not has always been a debatable issue. It was not clear whether inter se distribution of realisation under resolution plans among creditors is a commercial matter or not. NCLAT had in one of their judgments^[ix] held that the CoC cannot distribute realisation amongst creditors, as the FCs constituting CoC, being claimants at par with other creditors, have a conflict of interests.

Other Infrastructural Shortfalls

The Insolvency Professionals play a key role in the insolvency proceedings as the resolution professionals (RP) and as liquidators. Their role ranges from the evaluation of the distressed company, its management during the resolution proceedings, preparation and implementation of the resolution proposal and the distribution of the realised proceeds. In performing these functions it is important that they maintain transparency and integrity in their functioning to maintain the credibility of the system. During the past two years there have been several complaints raised against the integrity and independence of the Insolvency Professionals acting as the Resolution Professionals. There have been instances of the IPs failing to record the claims of the creditors, unilateral decisions being taken keeping the CoC in dark trying to pursue the IP’s own interest.  In one of the Orders of the IBBI Disciplinary committee it has been recorded that the IP failed to act in the best interests of the corporate debtor and its creditors but has pursued his appointment as the RP and as liquidator depriving CoC of its rights to resolve the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor[x]. There have also been instances where the IP was found to be acting in collusion with the Resolution Applicant[xi] or was acting only on behalf of one of the creditors without the approval of CoC[xii].

The Information Utilities were put to place considering the fact that the asymmetric information can seriously undermine the insolvency and Bankruptcy process and a centralised database shall cut short the otherwise long-drawn process for obtaining all the relevant information and establishing its veracity. Under the provisions of the Code, a CIRP can be triggered when a default by the debtor company has taken place and the IU enables a quicker initiation of cases by providing access to irrefutable and transparent evidence of the default, along with the identity of all the creditors, the terms and conditions of all liabilities as well as the assets registered. IUs thus facilitate the formation of the creditors’ committee within the stipulated period of 14 days from the date of registration of a case.

When the IP is unable to provide such evidence to the default the NCLT will have to call for further evidence by notifying the stakeholders to evaluate as to whether a default has indeed taken place. Presently this process is contributing substantially to the delay involved in the Admission stage. It gives rise to two possible outcomes:

   i)         The delay in forming the creditors’ committee reducing the time available to agree on a resolution plan. If the committee cannot agree on a resolution plan within the specified time limit, the NCLT will order the liquidation of the company.

  ii)         The NCLT may have to exercise its judicial discretion extending the CIRP beyond the time limit specified under the Code. 

Both these outcomes have negative consequences. The former creates a liquidation bias in CIRP while the latter compromises the fundamental design of time-bound resolution in the IBC.[xiii]

Further it is always advisable to have multiple players to increase the efficiency of the performance of IUs. The Viswanathan Committee Report and the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report 2016 had envisaged that be a competitive industry of IUs should exist with an interoperable environment pointing out that in the event of centralisation there shall be problems associated with the elevated profit, low-quality work of monopolies.[xiv]  Both these reports had highlighted the fact that a multiplayer environment shall encourage competition and drive down the prices for queries and user filing charges. However currently NeSL is the only Information Utility registered under the IBC framework and concerns have been raised by many of the players of the Banking industry that the rates charged by NeSL is on a higher side justifying the views of these Reports.

Impact of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act 2019

The IBC (Amendment) Act, 2019[xv] has brought the following key changes in the existing CIRP regime:

            i)         Reiterated Timeline: The Amendment has inserted a proviso to Sub Section (3) of Section 12 of the Code, whereby it is clarified that the 330 days within which the CIRP is to be mandatorily completed shall include any extension of the period of resolution process granted under Section 12 and also the time taken in legal proceedings in relation to such resolution process of the corporate debtor.

           ii)         Waterfall Distribution Mechanism under Resolution Plan: The Amendment Act provides that the Operational Creditors shall be paid not less than the amount payable to them in the event of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor or the amount payable to them if realisations under the resolution plan were distributed in accordance with the priority in the liquidation waterfall, whichever is higher. It also provides that the dissenting Financial Creditors shall be paid not less than the amount payable to them under liquidation waterfall. It clarifies that distributions made in this manner shall be fair and equitable. This provision shall apply to all ongoing CIRPs, including the ones where approved resolution plans are under litigation.

         iii)         CoC Decision on Resolution Plan: The Amendment has brought in a clear segregation between the commercial aspects of insolvency resolution from judicial aspects by making it clear that the CoC may approve a resolution plan after considering its feasibility and viability, and the manner of distribution of realisation under the plan, keeping in view priority of the creditors and their security interests.

         iv)         Voting Impasse: The Code provides for an Authorised Representative (AR) to represent a class of Financial Creditors and to vote in respect of each Financial Creditor in the committee of creditors (CoC). However, it was found difficult to secure the requisite votes where the CoC has class(es) of Financial Creditors, who are large in number, scattered all over the country and unorganised. To address the difficulty the 2019 Amendment has brought in a change to the effect that an AR shall vote for the Financial Creditors he represents in accordance with the decision taken by the class with more than 50% voting share of the Financial Creditors, who have cast their votes. This principle, however, shall not apply to voting for withdrawal of applications.

These amendments have been put to place with an intention to remove some of the legislative gaps which were being utilised to challenge the CIRP proceeds and CoC decisions leading to prolonged litigations delaying the resolution process[xvi].  However these changes are quite nascent and are yet to be subjected to any judicial scrutiny. It is hence too early to predict as to whether these changes shall continue to have the same impact which was originally intended by the Legislature.

SUGGESTIONS FOR CAPACITY BUILDING

v  Considering the increasing caseload of the NCLTs, it is necessary that Additional NCLT Benches should be established at various locations.

v  Currently NCLAT is only available in Delhi even though substantial cases are rising also from centres like Mumbai and Chennai. Hence Circuit Benches for NCLAT may also be considered.

v  The capacity of the NCLT and NCLAT may be reviewed from time to time and necessary infrastructure support must be provided.

v  The possibility of creating exclusive Benches for dealing with the matters related to the Code, considering the underlying complexities, may also be explored.

v  It must be religiously ensured that the time frame stipulated under IBC is strictly adhered to.

v  While the Economic Survey 2018-19 was published the facility for e-filing of applications, petitions, appeals, replies, etc. had been made available only at Delhi NCLT. The digitization and e filing must be expeditiously made available at other locations also.

v  Before notifying the provisions related to Insolvency Resolution and Bankruptcy for Individuals and Partnership firms it may be ensured that the DRTs are having the sufficient manpower and adequate infrastructure to efficiently handle the additional workload.

v  Sufficient regulatory measures should be put in place to ensure unbiased functioning of the IPs thereby ensuring transparency in the Resolution Process to avoid any conflict of interests.

v  There must be a robust mechanism to ensure the quality of the data available with the IU. The authentication of the financial information available with the IU needs to be duly scrutinised. Further the present technical infrastructure for preserving the data must be periodically reviewed and strengthened to prevent any loss of data and ensure the maintenance of confidentiality. It may be ensured that the IU infrastructure is sufficiently strengthened by creating a multi-player environment with interoperability.

---

[i] See P.79, Chapter III ‘Monetary Management and Financial Intermediation’, Economic Survey 2018-19, Vol II, Available at https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/doc/vol2chapter/echap03_vol2.pdf (Last visited 20.08.02019)

[ii] Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019 the existing threshold of 270 days was modified to 330 days.

[iii] See IBBI Newsletter January-March, 2019; See also Amitabh Kant, “IBC delayed is IBC denied” available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/ibc-delayed-is-ibc-denied/ (Last visited on 20/08/2019)

[iv] Id

[v] See Crisil Report “ Strengthening of the Code”, available at https://www.crisil.com/content/dam/crisil/our-analysis/reports/Ratings/documents/2019/april/strengthening-the-code.pdf ; See also Amitabh Kant, “IBC delayed is IBC denied” available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/ibc-delayed-is-ibc-denied/ (Last visited on 20/08/2019)

[vi] As of March 2019, the CIRP for 378 companies ended in liquidation out of which 283 companies were with BIFR or already defunct. See P 85 supra note 4

[vii] See Constitution of NCLT Benches, available at https://www.ibbi.gov.in/uploads/whatsnew/Constitution_of_Benches_at_All_NCLT_Locations (Last visited on 20.08.2019)

[viii] See Quinn Logistics India P Ltd v Macksoft Tech ltd,  (08.05.2019-NCLAT). See also IDBI Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Anuj Jain and Ors. (30.07.2019 - NCLAT) : MANU/NL/0339/2019

[ix] Judgment dated 4th July, 2019 of the NCLAT in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.

[x] IBBI/DC/10/2018 Order dt 15.10.2018

[xi] IBBI/DC/12/2018 dt 12.11.2018

[xii] IBBI/DC/03/2018 dt 18.04.2018

[xiii] See See Rajeswari Sengupta and Anjali Sharma, “Challenges in the Transition to the New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code”,  available at https://thewire.in/law/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code . (Last visited on 20.08.2019)

[xiv] See p 1171, Anirudh Wadhwa, Kapil Wadhwa et.al (eds). “Guide to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code - Vol I, P 1135-1137; (Wadhwa Brothers Sales Corporation, New Delhi, 1^st Edn, 2019).

[xv] The Amendment Act has been notified on 06.08.2019

[xvi] See A Resolve for Resolution, available at https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/resources/94659461570db043622409c293e97a03.pdf (Last visited on 20.08.2019)