Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: NCLT has discretion to not admit Financial Creditor’s CIRP Application even if Corporate Debtor is in default. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated July 12, 2022 in the matter of Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited [Civil Appeal No.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted at a time when there was no singular law which dealt with insolvency and bankruptcy in India. A perusal of the statement of objects and preamble of the Code reveal that it was enacted to consolidate the law of insolvency resolution of companies, partnerships etc in a time bound manner, for maximisation of assets and for balancing of interests of all stakeholders.
In the matter of Mr. Praful Nanji Satra v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Ors., the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) observed that insufficiency in payment of stamp duty will not affect admission of corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) for a valid debt.
Brief Facts
In a recent order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench (NCLAT), dismissing two appeals in Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta v. State Bank of India, Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 807 of 2021 and Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta v. State Bank of India & Anr., Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 740 of 2022 (dated 29 July 2022), it was held that merely by acquiring foreign citizenship after the execution of a deed of guarantee, a personal guarantor cannot escape his/her liability under the guarantee.
The Supreme Court in its recent judgement Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Private Limited & Others1, has held that an application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) against a corporate debtor is maintainable in respect of a time barred debt, if the debtor has after the expiry of the limitation period, agreed to repay the same.
Brief Facts
Introduction
Ever since the pandemic induced stress began, there has been talk of the Government introducing pre-packaged insolvency resolution processes (“pre-packs”) into the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Prevalent in other jurisdictions either through statutory provisions or market driven mechanisms, pre-packs aim to provide a more debtor-friendly, cost-effective and faster resolution process in situations where there may already be a broad consensus between debtor and creditors for a resolution.
A key concern in respect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) since its inception has been the differential treatment of operational creditors and financial creditors. For context, financial creditors have a purely financial arrangement with the corporate debtor, while operational creditors are those who are owed money by the corporate debtor for the provision of goods supplied or services rendered.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), a financial creditor may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) if there is a default of INR 10 million, by filing an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The settled principle is that an application made by a financial creditor under the Code must be admitted and CIRP initiates against the corporate debtor, if the NCLT is satisfied that a default has occurred in payment of debt.
Since the implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“Code”), the Real Estate Sector has been in turmoil, with many transactions entered into by the Builder(s) undermining and jeopardising the legitimate interests of innocuous creditors. The Code encompasses a collection of transactions that the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) and the liquidator appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) for companies in insolvency or liquidation should avoid, as stated below.