FEEDBACK FORM

S. NO PARTICULARS COMMENTS
1. Name of the Editor
2. Title of the Article Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Satish Kumar
Gupta, R.P. of Essar Steel Ltd. & Ors:
decided by National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal
3. Brief Description of the Article (general The Article attempts to decode the
overview of the article) nuances of the Essar Steel CIRP in
relation to various issues dealt with by the
Hon’ble NCLAT.
The article begins with an introductory
comment on the developing nature of
IBC and a brief factual matrix of the case.
It goes on to discuss the issue of the
discrimination of Standard Charter bank
as one of the financial creditors and the
NCLAT ruling thereon.
The article then moves straight on to the
issue of the grounds of classification of
Operational Creditors following a very
short and rather incomplete ruling of he
NCLAT.
Lastly, it discusses the validity of creation
of a ‘Sub Committee’ by the CoC
following the answer of the tribunal on
the same.
4. Shortcoming in the Article (if any) The article tries to cover a lot of aspects
in not so many words and sadly, it fails to
deliver. To cover an issue like the Essar
Steel CIRP, a more comprehensive and
nuanced article would’ve been welcomed.
The article misses out on a lot of aspects
of the judgement like the guarantor right
to subrogation and the right to be
indemnified under the Contract Act,
whether the approval of the plan
extinguished the past liabilities of the
debtor and whether the profits during
CIRP should be paid to the financial and
the operational creditors and how.
Coming to the writing style, sentence
structure and grammar, it’s not worthy of
our publication to say the least. The
article is filled with a catena of grammar
mistakes, unclear sentences and incorrect

5. Whether article can be published in the
Newsletter? (opinion and reason)
sentence structures. It finally ends with a
generic conclusion.
I think the previous two boxes answer
this question. Sadly, I suggest we pass on
this one.