Introduction
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted with a primary objective of timebound reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate debtors. Under the Code, financial or operational creditors of a corporate debtor can approach the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to initiate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor upon occurrence of a default by the corporate debtor.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 empowers Financial Creditor, Operational Creditors, and Corporate Debtor to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) upon a default being committed by a Corporate Debtor. CIRP involves the setting up of a Committee of Creditors (CoC) and approval of a resolution plan to restructure the Corporate Debtor, or the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. Often, Creditors and Corporate Debtor prefer to reach amicable settlements instead of going through with the entire CIRP process.
The Supreme Court has held that the dues towards the wages/salaries of only those workmen/employees who actually worked during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) are to be included in the CIRP costs.
The Apex Court in this regard observed that as per Section 5(13) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC’), “insolvency resolution process costs” shall include any costs incurred by the resolution professional in running the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern.
When the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was notified in 2016, one of its most talked about provisions was the limited scope of adjudication and consequently narrow jurisdiction conferred upon the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) in deciding insolvency cases. In fact, the provisions of the Code in respect of financial creditors were viewed by many as draconian and unconstitutional as the NCLT, prior to commencement of insolvency process, is required to only examine a debt and default and nothing else.
Facts and Background
The Supreme Court has on 11 April 2022 dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the decision of the High Court of Tripura at Agarthala, wherein the High Court had held that the distinction of decree holders as creditors from ‘financial creditors’ and ‘operational creditors’, is intelligible and takes forward the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, without being discriminatory or arbitrary.
Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. i.e., the corporate debtor (Jasmine) introduced a Gurgaon based housing project i.e., Krrish Provence Estate. The homebuyers of Krrish Provence Estate made an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Jasmine before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as Jasmine could not complete the project even after a period of eight years. Additionally, the homebuyers sought a refund of approximately INR 69 million on the grounds of inordinate delay.
Vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt is a noted maxim which means ‘the laws assist those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights‘ . This is a pertinent principle which applies predominantly while determining if a particular cause of action has been espoused within the limitation period.
Decided on 18 January 2022| Supreme Court of India