top of page
The following points provide a detailed list of formatting guidelines for the blog posts published on the IRCCL website:
  • The title of the article should be 100 characters or less.
  • Defined terms should be made bold and placed inside (parenthesis) at the first occurrence. For example: the Competition Commission of India 2002 (CCI).
  • Cases should be cited using the full name of the parties whenever possible. Cases should be cited in italics. Please note, if a case is used as a defined term, it should be made bold and italics and placed inside (parenthesis) at the first occurrence. Thereafter, the defined term should continue to be used in italics. For example: ABC Private Limited v XYZ (ABC).
  • Statutes should be referred to by their full name, including the year, at the first occurrence. Please note, we avoid using a comma between the name of the statute and the year. For example: Companies Act 2013.
  • When referring to a particular section / regulation / article of any statute, the first letter thereof should be capitalized. For example: Section 18 or Regulations 42 and 43.
  • Dates are formatted as follows: 31 March 2019 or 1 April 2020.
  • Direct quotes from any judgement / order should be italicized and placed inside "double quotes".
  • Indicate emphasis by italicizing the relevant word / phrase. When adding emphasis on quoted material, the relevant word / phrase should be underlined and the quote should be followed by the phrase "(emphasis supplied)".
The following sample paragraphs illustrate the formatting requirements:
On 15 April 2021, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) in ARCIL v Bishal Jaiswal (Bishal-II) has finally held that balance-sheet entries are not barred from being treated as acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1963 (Limitation Act) and whether a particular entry therein amounts to acknowledgment or not would be a fact-specific inquiry. 
Illustrating further on the determining powers of the RP, a 3-member bench of NCLAT in Mr. S. Rajendran, Resolution Professional v. Jonathan Mouralidarane observed that under the provision of IBC and CIRP Regulations resolution professionals lack jurisdiction to determine claims and hence, they can only collate the claims based on the evidence and the records. The appellate tribunal further observed that "…..If an aggrieved person thereof moves before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority after going through all the records, comes to a definite conclusion that certain claimed amount is payable, the 'Resolution Professional' should not have moved in Appeal, as in any manner, he will not be affected." (emphasis supplied)
bottom of page