This article analyses the extent to which dissenting financial creditors are protected under the Indian insolvency regime.
Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (“BLRC”) was very clear while setting out the objectives of the new insolvency law for the country and speedy resolution/decision making in an insolvency situation was stated to be one of such foremost objectives. Fragmented laws governing an insolvency and lack of a cohesive framework governing the rights of various stakeholders during insolvency was identified as a primary reason for inefficiency of the pre-existing legal framework.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("the Code" & “IBC”) has been widely acclaimed as a transformative legislative framework in India, representing a significant departure from previous insolvency laws by emphasizing efficient resolution processes and the professionalization of insolvency services.
Introduction
In the dynamic and rapidly evolving global marketplace, particularly in fast-growing economies like India, there are ever-growing commercial transactions amongst entities within India as also in international transactions amongst entities within India and outside of India.
In the case of Iskon Infra Engineering Private Limited v.
Since the inception of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code“), the debt resolution regime in India has witnessed not only a paradigm shift from the conventional ‘debtor in possession’ to a progressive ‘creditor in control’ but has also undergone a significant transformation, marking a departure from its traditional labyrinthine processes to a more streamlined and effective framework.
Introduction
For initiating proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC”), categorisation of a creditor as either a “financial creditor” or an “operational creditor” is a rather significant first step. Such categorisation is not merely organisational, but essential since the rights, obligations and procedural requirements for realisation of debt by financial and operational creditors also differ under the IBC.
1. Introduction
The longstanding debate surrounding the prioritization of crown debts vis-à-vis private debts has entered a new chapter with the advent of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Prior to the IBC, the common law principle generally granted crown debts preferential status over unsecured debts. This historical primacy stemmed from the sovereign's role as the embodiment of the public good, requiring unimpeded revenue collection for the smooth functioning of the State.
The Supreme Court (SC) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr v. Sach Marketing Private Limited & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 649 upheld the judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (NCLAT), dated 07 October 2021 (Impugned Order) by which Sach Marketing Private Limited (Sach) was held to be a ‘financial creditor’ of Mount Shivalik Industries Limited, the corporate debtor, (CD) in corporate insolvency resolution proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).