The treatment and position of statutory creditors having a statutory charge in insolvency proceedings gained criticality at the first instance upon passing of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of STATE TAX OFFICER (I) VERSUS RAINBOW PAPERS LTD. 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1162 (Rainbow Papers Case). The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether in terms of Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the State Government shall be treated as a “Secured creditor” of the company undergoing insolvency proceedings.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr Vs SACH Marketing Pvt. Ltd & Anr, has established the following principles on classification of a debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”):

In the recent decision of the Anjani Kumar Prashar (Suspended Director of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Limited) v. Manab Dutta1, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that the auction purchaser would also be a financial creditor vis‐à‐vis the creditors of the entity whose assets were purchased by the auction purchaser.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been at loggerheads with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on various occasions in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of a distressed entity. Courts and tribunals have passed varying judgments, either giving primacy to the IBC or allowing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a functionary under the PMLA, to perform its duties irrespective of the ongoing CIRP of a company.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 18 September 2023 notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (CIRP Amendment Regulations) amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations).

The key changes brought about by the CIRP Amendment Regulations are as follows:

September, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Bombay High Court: Secured creditor may initiate recovery proceedings against secured asset owned by guarantor even if principal borrower is placed under moratorium. ⁎ Calcutta High Court: Application for removal of arbitrator must be made before the same court as envisaged in Sections 2(i)(e) and 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Introduction

Barely six years since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), the Code has already undergone various amendments from to time, to aid its broad objective of time bound insolvency resolution, maximisation of value of assets of corporate debtors and balancing the interests of all stakeholders. Besides the amendments, judicial pronouncements have also played an instrumental role in shaping the Code in its present form.  

On August 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Vizag Minerals and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravi Shankar Devarakonda & Ors1, while dismissing the civil appeal filed by Vizag Minerals and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

In the matter of Mr. Santosh Mate (Prop. of Mahalaxmi Traders) vs. M/s Satyam Transformers Private Limited1, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT Mumbai”) held that the conversion of an operational debt into financial debt through an agreement is invalid and impermissible as it would defeat the very objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and have the effect of rewriting it.

Brief Facts 

This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 11 September 2023.