The Union Cabinet on December 11, 2019^[1] approved the amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) and the same was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 12, 2019. The amendment aims at streamlining issues of troubled companies, protect corporate debtors and prevent unnecessary revocation of insolvency proceedings under the IBC.

Key Highlights

I. Supreme Court: Scope of intervention by High Courts in cases of orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal

II. Supreme Court: State legislature cannot enact law which affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

III. Supreme Court: Difference between inadequacy of reasons in arbitral award and unintelligible awards

IV. NCLT: RP can take possession of a corporate debtor's assets which are subject matter of litigation to facilitate the corporate insolvency resolution process

In a big move to strengthen norms for the Insolvency Resolution Professionals (IRP‘s), the governing body for the Insolvency Professionals, the ‘Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (herein referred to as ‘the Board’) has notified amendments to the (i) the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016 and (ii) the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) vide its order dated 23.09.2019 passed in the matter ofVinayaka Exports and another Vs. M/s. Colorhome Developers Pvt. Ltd., overturned the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench (“NCLT”) dismissing an application filed by two financial creditors under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) owing to the pendency of a civil suit and pre-existing dispute between the parties.

FACTS:

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.

Commercial decisions are largely driven by incentive structures. Therefore, if legal policy favours a particular commercial outcome, the decision-making in that regard must be placed in the hands of entities most likely to be affected by such outcomes. This logic can also be applied to insolvency proceedings. The favoured policy outcome of the Indian insolvency law framework is the maximization of value of a corporate debtor. In the context of an insolvent company, the persons most likely to gain from such maximization of value are its creditors.

It is now a settled position that the prime objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBCâ€) is resolution or revival of the Corporate Debtor; followed by maximising the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor; and lastly to promote entrepreneurship and availability of credit. The proceedings under the IBC are not intended to substitute recovery proceedings.

In as much as the Government has been in the consistent process of encouraging business operations in the nation, it also has the objective to create more transparent and systematic mechanism ensuring time bound manner and for maximization of the value assets. One of the major challenges faced by the modern commercial sector is the reposition of faith of the creditors who put their hard-earned investments at the fate of the success of the business transactions undertaken.

Resolution Procedure

In order to facilitate the smooth conduct of business transactions the Government has put in numerous efforts in the form policies and regulations. While the greatest threat posed to the lenders in the modern market operations is the impact of non-performing assets or bad loans. In order to maximize the value assets in a time bound manner, the Government enforced the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IBC').

Recently, in K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. [See endnote. 1] the Supreme Court had an occasion to decide whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) can be invoked in respect of an Operational Debt where an Arbitral Award has been passed in favour of the Operational Creditor in respect of such Operational Debt, but, the objections against the said Arbitral Award are pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’).