The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been widely considered a landmark legislation that has brought about a paradigm shift in the recovery and resolution process.

However, during the implementation of the IBC over the past two years and eight months, several challenges have emerged, including:

Introduction

The Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India (Pioneer Judgment)[1], has upheld the constitutionality of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 (Amendment Act)[2].

In recent times, there have been multiple instances of delay in completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) as per the timelines prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). This is primarily due to the filing of multiple legal proceedings by stakeholders, and their long continuing pendency.

The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), has recently in its suigeneris judgment in UI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Roxcel Trading GMBH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 664 of 2019 (‘Roxcel Trading’), affirmed the view of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, wherein, it had imposed ‘moratorium’ on the Corporate Debtor even before initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.  

Analysis of the Judgement- Imposition of Pre IBC ‘Moratorium’  

Supreme Court has declared the RBI Circular dated 12-02-2018, by which the RBI promulgated a revised framework for resolution of stressed assets, ultra vires Section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act. It declared all actions proceeded against debtors, triggered under Section 7 of the Insolvency Code, as a result of the said circular as non-est.

The Court however held that the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2017, which inserted Section 35AA, i.e., provisions which give the RBI certain regulatory powers, is not manifestly arbitrary.

Following are the various modes for existing business in India –

• Transfer of shares for exiting business in India
• Voluntary Liquidation in Existing Business in India
• Winding up by the National Company Law Tribunal when Exiting Business in India
• Other Options for Exiting Business in India

This article discusses all of the above mentioned points in greater detail-

Transfer of shares for exiting business in India

1. Legal provisions governing transfer of shares

The enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been often cited as one of the key economic reform of the present government . Undoubtedly the new enactment resulted in large corporate entities queuing up to acquire distressed companies and their assets, put on block following initiation of IBC proceedings, thereby infusing efficiencies in the economy due to likely revivals of such companies .

Introduction

The division bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) comprising of Hon’ble Justice Mr R.F. Nariman and Hon’ble Justice Mr Vineet Saran, in its judgment dated 30 April 2019 in J.K. Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha v Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd & Ors has held that a trade union  is an operational creditor for the purpose of initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Brief Facts

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.