In recent times, there have been multiple instances of delay in completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) as per the timelines prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). This is primarily due to the filing of multiple legal proceedings by stakeholders, and their long continuing pendency.
The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), has recently in its suigeneris judgment in UI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Roxcel Trading GMBH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 664 of 2019 (‘Roxcel Trading’), affirmed the view of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, wherein, it had imposed ‘moratorium’ on the Corporate Debtor even before initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.
Analysis of the Judgement- Imposition of Pre IBC ‘Moratorium’
In State Bank of India v Moser Baer Karamchari Union [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Number 396 of 2019] (Moser Baer), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT), ruled on the scope of ‘workmen’s dues’ under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) from the perspective of the dues of an employer towards provident fund, pension fund and gratuity. Background |
Corel Corporation vs. Mahabali Innovative Technologies Private Limited, CS (COMM) 711/2016
A suit was instituted for permanent injunction, against the Defendant to restrain the Defendant from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff in various software programmes of the Plaintiff including the Corel DVD MovieFactory 7 software and for ancillary reliefs.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a revised prudential framework for resolution of stressed assets on 7 June 2019 (Revised Circular) in supersession of the erstwhile circular on Resolution of Stressed Assets dated 12 February 2018 (Feb 12 Circular) which was struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2 April 2019.
The 2005 Report of the Expert Committee on Company Law (JJ Irani Committee Report) had noted that an effective insolvency law:
“should strike a balance between rehabilitation and liquidation. It should provide an opportunity for genuine effort to explore restructuring/ rehabilitation of potentially viable businesses with consensus of stakeholders reasonably arrived at. Where revival / rehabilitation is demonstrated as not being feasible, winding up should be resorted to.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (the ‘Code’) provides the creditors with a comprehensive solution for recovery of dues from willful defaulters. While this legislation has been facing teething issues and inconsistencies from its inception, the proactive approach of the government in amending this liquidation law from time to time has led to its significant implementation.
Supreme Court has upheld constitutional validity of various provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It noted that the Code is a beneficial legislation which puts corporate debtor back on its feet, not being a mere recovery legislation for creditors.
Observing that there is no liquidation, even in the preamble, the court noted that the Code is first and foremost, a Code for reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate debtors. Unless such reorganization is effected in a time-bound manner, the value of the assets of such persons will deplete.
In Forech India Ltd. v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that an Insolvency Petition may be filed against a corporate debtor irrespective of the pendency of a winding-up petition before a High Court
Revision of ECB framework: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on December 17, 2018 revised and consolidated the provisions related to borrowing and lending transactions into one single regulation i.e. the Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending) Regulations, 2018 ("ECB Regulations").