The 2005 Report of the Expert Committee on Company Law (JJ Irani Committee Report) had noted that an effective insolvency law:
“should strike a balance between rehabilitation and liquidation. It should provide an opportunity for genuine effort to explore restructuring/ rehabilitation of potentially viable businesses with consensus of stakeholders reasonably arrived at. Where revival / rehabilitation is demonstrated as not being feasible, winding up should be resorted to.
Commercial decisions are largely driven by incentive structures. Therefore, if legal policy favours a particular commercial outcome, the decision-making in that regard must be placed in the hands of entities most likely to be affected by such outcomes. This logic can also be applied to insolvency proceedings. The favoured policy outcome of the Indian insolvency law framework is the maximization of value of a corporate debtor. In the context of an insolvent company, the persons most likely to gain from such maximization of value are its creditors.
The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) in its order in Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta, R.P. of Essar Steel Limited & Ors. has dealt with various important legal issues in relation to the corporate insolvency resolution process (‘CIRP’). Some of the key aspects of this judgment have been summarised below:
1. Validity of Guarantee
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
Revision of ECB framework: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on December 17, 2018 revised and consolidated the provisions related to borrowing and lending transactions into one single regulation i.e. the Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending) Regulations, 2018 ("ECB Regulations").
On 11 February 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal bearing No...
Banning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes Ordinance, 2019 By Sudish Sharma and Vishakha Singh
Indian economy in the recent times has witnessed a plethora of fraudulent corporate malpractices. The issue of illegal deposit-taking activities has been a concerning one, causing various financial frauds in forms of 'ponzi' schemes, 'chit funds' scams etc. There has been
a dire need to counter such illicit practices, and to
initiate another deterrent action against the black
money generated out of such illicit-deposit taking
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.