Singapore Court grants recognition to an Indian company’s CIRP for the first time: Key Takeaways

The Singapore High Court recently issued its grounds of decisions in Re Compuage Infocom Ltd and another [2025] SGHC 49. As the first reported decision of its kind granting recognition to an Indian company’s Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in Singapore, the ruling offers invaluable guidance to Indian companies and insolvency practitioners alike. Oon & Bazul’s Keith Han and Ammani Mathivanan acted for the successful applicants.

Compuage Infocom Limited (CIL) is an Indian-incorporated company specialising in IT distribution, with a branch office in Singapore and a Singapore-incorporated subsidiary. CIL soon found itself in financial difficulties after a downturn in the IT sector and defaulted on a loan repayment to an Indian creditor. Consequently, pursuant to the Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC), the creditor initiated the CIRP against CIL. The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (NCLT) subsequently granted an order initiating the CIRP against CIL and also passed an order appointing the Resolution Professional (RP), Mr Gajesh Labhchand Jain, in India (the “NCLT Orders”).

In Singapore, recognition of CIL’s CIRP and the RP’s appointment was sought under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, as adopted in Singapore by way of Part 11 and the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the “Model Law”) for the purposes of, among other things, obtaining CIL’s branch office’s Singapore bank statements and to recover and return CIL’s assets in Singapore back to its estate in India. This was further necessitated by the fact that the Singapore bank indicated that it would only provide the requested documents if the NCLT orders were recognised.

In considering whether CIL’s CIRP (i.e., its insolvency proceeding) should be granted recognition in Singapore under the Model Law, certain statutory requirements must be satisfied. With this framework in mind, the court had regard to several issues, including:

Whether the CIRP is a collective proceeding

To qualify as a “foreign proceeding” under the Model Law the proceeding must, among others, be collective in nature and a judicial or administrative proceeding in a foreign state [Ascentra Holdings, Inc (in official liquidation) and others v SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] 2 SLR 421 at [29]]. The court found that the CIRP amounted to a collective proceeding. This was because the CIRP’s objectives are to provide a mechanism for corporate turnaround through (a) a structured process involving the formation of a Committee of Creditors and appointment of a resolution professional, (b) mandatory safeguards ensuring fair treatment of all stakeholders, and (c) a clear preference for reorganisation over liquidation, with liquidation a last resort when no resolution plan was accepted.

Additionally, the Committee of Creditors is constituted by creditors who have submitted claims upon public notice, and the same Committee has to provide the requisite approval for a resolution plan to be submitted to the NCLT. These characteristics showed that the CIRP is a reorganisation process which considers the rights and obligations of all of CIL’s creditors.

Whether the NCLT is a foreign court

Another element the court had to consider was whether the CIRP is a judicial or administrative proceeding in India. This necessarily involved the determination of whether the NCLT constitutes a “foreign court” under Article 2(e) of the Model Law. The court noted that the NCLT is not strictly a court. Instead, it is a quasi-judicial body comprising members of the judiciary. However, and importantly, its quasi-judicial nature does not defeat its status as a foreign court, which, as defined in the Model Law, includes non-judicial authorities. Indeed, the NCLT is the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC and possesses specific jurisdiction over the CIRP for companies. Because of its competence to control or supervise a foreign proceeding, the Singapore Court found that the NCLT was a “foreign court."

Whether Mr Jain is a foreign representative under the foreign proceeding

Under Article 2(i) of the Model law, a foreign representative refers to a person or body authorised in a foreign proceeding to administer the liquidation of the debtor’s property or affairs or act as a representative of the foreign proceeding. As a person authorised in the CIRP to administer the reorganisation of CIL, Mr Jain fell within this definition. Accordingly, the court granted recognition of Mr Jain as a foreign representative.

Repatriation of assets

There were assets belonging to CIL in Singapore, which Mr Jain wanted to repatriate to India for inclusion in the company’s estate. The court found that while it is prepared to grant the relief, it directed that Singapore-based creditors must first be put on notice and given the opportunity to voice their objections.

The court’s rigorous analysis of the Indian insolvency regime led it to conclude that the CIRP qualifies as a “foreign proceeding” under the Model Law. By affirming that the NCLT constitutes a foreign court under Singapore’s legislation, the court resolved uncertainties surrounding the NCLT’s quasi-judicial status. This decision underscores Singapore’s progressive and inclusive approach to recognising foreign adjudicative authorities, paving the way for greater cross-border cooperation.

The decision provides much-needed clarity and confidence to Indian resolution professionals seeking recognition of CIRPs in Singapore. For Indian firms undergoing CIRP, this precedent offers a robust legal framework to navigate cross-border insolvency proceedings. That can only bolster trust and collaboration between the two jurisdictions, given the burgeoning amount of cross-border economic activity and deepening ties between Singapore and India.

About the authors: Keith Han is an Equity Partner and Heads the Restructuring & Insolvency Department; Ammani Mathivanan is a Senior Associate in the Restructuring & Insolvency Department at Oon & Bazul LLP.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.