The Supreme Court has held that the ‘doctrine of election’, stemming out of the law of evidence that bars prosecution of the same right in two different fora based on the same cause of action, cannot be applied to prevent a financial creditor from approaching the adjudicating authority for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a corporate debtor.

Under the framework of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), an asset reconstruction company (ARC) has wide powers to revive a company facing financial difficulties. It can use securitisation, reconstruction and recovery for quick resolution of distressed debt. As an alternative, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), allows ARCs with access to a formal resolution process, which has the advantage of the borrower emerging debt-free with a clean slate.

The Supreme Court of India (‘Supreme Court’) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. has held that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) for recovery of dues payable to a secured creditor will prevail over the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSMED Act’).

Brief Facts

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated May 18, 2022 in Indian Overseas Bank Versus M/S Rcm Infrastructure Ltd. And Another[1] observed that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) cannot be continued once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) has been initiated and moratorium is ordered under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.