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.

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets) Directions, 2019 (“New Framework”) on June 07, 2019[1] in which the RBI has continued the core principles of its circular dated February 12, 2018 (“February 12 Circular”) and has added provisions encouraging both informal and formal restructuring in India.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (the ‘Code’) provides the creditors with a comprehensive solution for recovery of dues from willful defaulters. While this legislation has been facing teething issues and inconsistencies from its inception, the proactive approach of the government in amending this liquidation law from time to time has led to its significant implementation.

Supreme Court has upheld constitutional validity of various provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It noted that the Code is a beneficial legislation which puts corporate debtor back on its feet, not being a mere recovery legislation for creditors.

Observing that there is no liquidation, even in the preamble, the court noted that the Code is first and foremost, a Code for reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate debtors. Unless such reorganization is effected in a time-bound manner, the value of the assets of such persons will deplete.

In Forech India Ltd. v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court has held that an Insolvency Petition may be filed against a corporate debtor irrespective of the pendency of a winding-up petition before a High Court