The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), introduced in 2016, was conceived as a game-changer, a potent tool to expedite debt recovery from insolvent companies within a stipulated timeframe. Eight years into its existence, the IBC has witnessed a mixed track record. While it has successfully revitalised some companies grappling with financial turmoil, it has also faced criticism. The aim of the IBC was not only to aid the revival of struggling companies, but also to enhance the quality of lenders’ balance sheets and empower distressed asset buyers.

The High Court (Court) recently dismissed a petition seeking the winding up of a biofuel company (Company).

The ex tempore judgment is of note because it considers the standing of the Petitioner to bring the application and the consequences of a relevant witness not being cross-examined by the Petitioner on his affidavit evidence regarding the solvency of the Company.

Background

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is silent on the treatment of a disputed or contingent claim, which is pending adjudication before a judicial or quasi-judicial body, giving rise to a contentious issue. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Limited v.

Introduction

The modification or withdrawal of Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code / IBC”) had always been a contentious subject, with the National Company Law Tribunal (“Adjudicating Authority / NCLT”) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) taking conflicting views in the past.

Introduction

Group Insolvency: Introduction

Group means two or more enterprises, which directly or indirectly are in a position to exercise 26% or more voting rights in other enterprise or appoint more than 50% members of the Board of Directors in the other enterprise or control the management or affairs of the other enterprise.[1]

Rainbow Papers: The Judgment

In State Tax Officer (1) v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1162 ("Rainbow Papers"), the Supreme Court dealt with the question as to whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ("IBC") (specifically Section 53) overrides Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("GVAT Act").

Section 48 of the GVAT Act provides as follows.

Section 48. Tax to be first charge on property:

While the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) provides for insolvency resolution and liquidation of ‘corporate persons’, it excludes ‘financial service provider’ (“FSP(s)”) from the said provision.

The scheme of arrangement (Rescue Plan) prepared by the examiner of Mac Interiors Limited (Company) has not been approved by the High Court following strong objections from the Revenue Commissioners (Revenue).

In its challenge, Revenue argued that there had been an error in “class composition” or, in other words, an error in the classification of creditors that voted on the Rescue Plan.

Class Composition

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) issued a notification on October 03, 2023 under Section 14(3)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), exempting the applicability of moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC to transactions, arrangements or agreements under the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (“Convention”) and the Protocol to the Convention on Inte