Introduction

In a move to accord relief to Licensors with outstanding license fee payments, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) vide order dated 7th July 2022 (“Order”) held that a debt arising from unpaid license fees is qualified as an ‘operational debt’ under Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

INTRODUCTION:

I. Introduction

Proceedings against personal guarantors find their origin in Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the co-extensive liability of a surety. It has long been considered that a surety’s liability to pay the debt is not removed by reason of the creditor’s omission to sue the principal debtor. Such a creditor is not bound to exhaust his remedy against the principal debtor before suing the surety, and a suit may be maintained against the surety even though the principal debtor has not been sued.

The Supreme Court has held that Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers discretionary power on the NCLT with respect to admission of application under said provision.

The Court was however of the view that such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously and that NCLT must consider the grounds made out by the corporate debtor against admission, on its own merits.

On 05 July 2022, a Full Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Jaipur Trade Expocentre Private Limited v. M/s Metro Jet Airways Training Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 423 of 2021, held that a claim towards unpaid license fees for an immovable property would constitute an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and consequently constitute a debt in default for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: A liability in respect of a claim arising out of a recovery certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a "financial debt" under the IBC and a holder of such recovery certificate would be a "financial creditor" under the IBC. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated May 30, 2022, in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna and Another [Civil Appeal No.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons.

Introduction

The Indian Supreme Court holds in Ebix[1] that once a Resolution Plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC),it cannot be withdrawn by the Successful Resolution Applicant(“SRA”). It comes to this conclusion by holding that principle applicable under common law or the contract act, viz frustration or force majeure, are not available to the SRA under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) regime.

Holding that liability in respect of a claim arising out of a recovery certificate would be a ‘financial debt’, the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that a person who holds a recovery certificate would be a ‘financial creditor’ within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Court was hence of the view that the holder of the recovery certificate would be a financial creditor and entitled to initiate CIRP, within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the recovery certificate.