The three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Madura Coats Limited (“the Appellant”) vs.
Introduction
Questions around the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 and the Companies Act 1956 have frequently arisen in various high courts and the Supreme Court.
The upper house of Parliament (the Rajya Sabha) passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 on May 11 2016.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code passed by the Parliament is a welcome overhaul of the existing framework dealing with insolvency of corporates, individuals, partnerships and other entities. It paves the way for much needed reforms while focussing on creditor driven insolvency resolution.
BACKGROUND
Presently, prior to a listed Indian company filing a scheme (Scheme) before the High Court for merger/de-merger/amalgamation/reduction of capital (Reconstruction) under the Companies Act, 1956 (Companies Act), it is required to first submit the Scheme to the stock exchange for approval. Upon successful completion of the Reconstruction, the company must ensure that at least 25% of its post-issue capital is offered and allotted to the public.
Provisions under Companies Act , 1956
Chapter V of Part VI: Management and Administration of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] regulates Arbitration, Compromises, Arrangements and Reconstructions as covered under Section 390-396A of the said Act. Section 390 of the Act provides interpretation of Sections 391 and 393 as under:
390. INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 391 AND 393
In sections 391 and 393, -
The Supreme Court of India ("SC") has held that in the event of liquidation of a company, claims of employees have to be considered by the Official Liquidator of the company and not by the Debt Recovery Tribunal ("DRT"). The SC made this decision in the case of Bank of Maharashtra v. Pandurang Keshav Gorwardkar & Ors.1, and laid down certain rules for deciding employee claims.
FACTS
The rapid growth of global economy has led to widespread international trade and this expansion in international trade has brought with it increasing possibilities of cross border insolvency proceedings. In its simplest form, Cross Border Insolvency may involve insolvency proceedings in one country with its creditors located in another country/countries on the other hand in the most complex of cases it may involve subsidiaries, assets, operations and creditors in dozens of nations.