The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”/”Code”) came into force on 28th May, 2016 with the primary objective of consolidating and amending the laws of reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner to maximise the value of their assets. The Code has been evolving over the last six years, with changing scenarios and adapting to practical circumstances along the way. As a result, the Code has undergone amendments from time to time.
For a creditor to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceeding (CIRP) against a debtor, the debt owed to them should be “Financial Debt” under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
The Indian Supreme Court holds in Ebix[1] that once a Resolution Plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC),it cannot be withdrawn by the Successful Resolution Applicant(“SRA”). It comes to this conclusion by holding that principle applicable under common law or the contract act, viz frustration or force majeure, are not available to the SRA under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) regime.
Holding that liability in respect of a claim arising out of a recovery certificate would be a ‘financial debt’, the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that a person who holds a recovery certificate would be a ‘financial creditor’ within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Court was hence of the view that the holder of the recovery certificate would be a financial creditor and entitled to initiate CIRP, within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the recovery certificate.
Recently, by a judgment dated 30 May 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Courtin the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus A. Balakrishnan & Anr (Judgment dated 30 May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021) held that a recovery certificate issued the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1992 (RDB Act) would qualify as a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and give rise to a fresh cause of action under section 7 of the IBC.
Introduction
2016年破産倒産法は、企業債務者の時間的制約のある再建と倒産処理を主たる目的として制定されました。同法に基づき、企業債務者の金融債権者又は事業債権者は、債務不履行が発生した場合、会社法審判所(以下「NCLT」)に対して、企業債務者の倒産処理手続の開始を申請することができます。
会社法上訴審判所(以下「NCLAT」)の各種判決に照らすと、Decree-Holder(後ほど説明します)が企業の債務者に対して破産手続きを開始する権利は、Decree-Holderが金融債権者であるか否かについての見解が分かれており、不確実なものとなっていました。金融債権者が破産手続を開始するプロセスは、事業債権者によるプロセスと比較して、非常に異なっています。
「decree」と「decree holder」の概念について説明すると、「decree」とは、訴訟関係者の権利を説明する裁判官による裁決の公式宣言であり、decreeが下された者が「decree holder」と呼ばれます。
The Supreme Court of India in Indian Overseas Bank v M/s RCM Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. held that a sale under section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”), would be regarded as complete only upon receipt of full consideration towards the sale properties.
Who is a corporate debtor?
A corporate debtor refers to a company, a limited liability partnership or any person who owes a debt to its creditors. Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, a corporate debtor is liable to the financial and operational creditors for the payment of such debt.
What types of creditors are there with respect to a corporate debtor?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated April 18, 2022 in State Bank of India Vs Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited has observed that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Brief Facts
INTRODUCTION
India has been grappling with an increase in non-performing assets (NPA) and defaults of loans since at least the 1990s. As per recent reports, gross NPAs of public sector banks have doubled in the last 7 (seven) years, 1 which is indicative of the issues being faced by lenders against recalcitrant borrowers.