INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has held that the Customs Act, 1962 (“Customs Act”) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) act in their own spheres. In case of any conflict, the IBC would override the Customs Act.

A 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 26 August 2022 has held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will prevail over the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

Background

The regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), is largely creditor centric. In fact, extraordinary as it may sound, corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under IBC is nothing short of a puppet show, with the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) as the puppet master. The CoC, comprising of financial creditors of the corporate debtor, is paramount in terms of making the most significant decisions of the process and plays a vital role in resolving the debt.

On 27 July 2022, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Zoom Communications Private Limited v Par Excellence Real Estate Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 619 of 2022 upheld the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) dated 17 May 2022 dismissing an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the ground that the debt appeared suspicious and collusive in nature.

Background

Premise

Since the advent of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the insolvency law regime in India has been consolidated and uniformized. Courts have repeatedly held that the IBC is a code in itself and that one need not look elsewhere in deciding matters under it.

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: NCLT has discretion to not admit Financial Creditor’s CIRP Application even if Corporate Debtor is in default. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated July 12, 2022 in the matter of Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited [Civil Appeal No.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted at a time when there was no singular law which dealt with insolvency and bankruptcy in India. A perusal of the statement of objects and preamble of the Code reveal that it was enacted to consolidate the law of insolvency resolution of companies, partnerships etc in a time bound manner, for maximisation of assets and for balancing of interests of all stakeholders.

In the matter of Mr. Praful Nanji Satra v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Ors., the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) observed that insufficiency in payment of stamp duty will not affect admission of corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) for a valid debt.

Brief Facts

A key concern in respect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) since its inception has been the differential treatment of operational creditors and financial creditors. For context, financial creditors have a purely financial arrangement with the corporate debtor, while operational creditors are those who are owed money by the corporate debtor for the provision of goods supplied or services rendered.