July 22, 2021
~ By Ankur Mishra & Aaryan Mohan
Code – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
CIRP – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
AA – Adjudicating Authority (NCLT)
CD – Corporate Debtor
FC – Financial Creditor
OC – Operational Creditor
CoC – Committee of Creditors
IRP – Interim Resolution Professional
RP – Resolution Professional
RA – Resolution Applicant
Retrospective application of amendments made in IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations – M/s LML Ltd. (In Liquidation) Through Liquidator, Arun Gupta (14/07/2021)
The present application was filed by the Liquidator of CD under Section 60(5)(c) of the Code r/w Regulation 33(1) and Schedule I of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (“LP Regulations”) seeking permission to conduct an auction of CD’s assets by reducing the reserve price by 10% for a subsequent auction, when the auction fails at the earlier reduced price.
In this case, the AA had ordered the liquidation of the CD vide order dated 23.03.2018 and subsequently appointed Mr. Arun Gupta as a liquidator on 09.04.2018. The liquidator constituted a monitoring committee and issued a sale notice along with a public announcement on 27.09.2018 for the first auction to be held on 31.10.2018. However, one major immovable property remained unsold despite putting it up for auction 11 times.
Sub-paragraphs 4, 4A and 4B of para 1 Schedule 1 of the LP Regulations were amended on 25.07.2019. According to the amended provisions, the reserve price shall be the value of the asset in accordance with Regulation 35 (sub-para 4). Where an auction fails at the reserve price, the Liquidator may reduce the reserve price by upto 25% of such value and conduct subsequent auctions (sub-para 4A). If an auction fails even at a reduced price under clause 4A, the reserve price may be further reduced by not more than 10% at a time (sub-para 4B). These amendments were made applicable to liquidation processes which commenced on or after 25.07.2019. The present application had been filed since the liquidation process in this case had begun before 25.07.2019.
The AA allowed the retrospective application of the amended LP Regulations in the present case and opined that, allowing the said application would expedite the liquidation process as otherwise, the liquidator may not be able to sell the property. Accordingly, the liquidator was permitted to reduce the reserve price by 10% in the next auction.
Approval of Resolution Plan by AA under Section 31 of the Code for resolution of M/s Piyush Shelters India Pvt. Ltd. (14/07/2021)
Liquidation of Hipad Technology India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 33 of the Code (15/07/2021)
Dissolution of Shashi Oils and Fats Pvt. Ltd. under Section 54 of Code (15/07/2021)
The ambiguous contours of the look back period — Invesco Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (13/07/2021)
The application, filed by the suspended management, was for the NCLT to enforce the look back period in the context of avoidance transactions, as given under Section 46(1) of the Code. The management contended that the CoC and their auditor need to adhere to the mandate of the Code, which prescribes a look back period beyond which avoidance transactions cannot be looked into. The NCLT while concurring with the view of the suspended management, cautioned the CoC, and the auditor to pay heed to the look back period; however, the NCLT was of the view that the suspended management could bolster their defence in the Section 66 proceedings, by highlighting that the look back period was exceeded, thereby, denying any preemptive relief to the suspended board of management.
It is a settled position of law, that if a Court has the power to remedy a wrong, it should be within its jurisdiction to prevent the wrong from happening. However, the same is to be construed with the objective of the provision, therefore, the contention that going beyond the look back period would be prejudicial to the suspended management does not hold water. The overarching objective of the code is to maximize the debtor’s assets in favour of all the stakeholders involved, therefore, the wrong brought about after exceeding the look back period will need to be balanced against the increase in the debtor’s estate. Further, section 45, which does not account for intention is limited by the look back period, however, section 49 deals with avoidance transactions which involve malafide intent, therefore, the same should not be limited by the look back period, as “it is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything”(Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962)). However, the malafide intent behind such transactions would only surface when they are actually discovered, therefore, the NCLT’s stance on not intervening preemptively, and allowing the contravention to be used as a post facto defence in section 66 proceedings, is correct.
Can the CoC be compelled to reconsider a rejected Resolution Plan? Alpha Alternate Holdings v. Union of India
The CoC rejected the RA’s plan on the basis of two technicalities. First, that it had been submitted by an entity other than the RA, and second, the RP had not valued all of the debtor’s assets. However, the RP highlighted a third contention against the RA’s plan – that it did not comply with the issued Expression of Interest and with the Requirement for Resolution Plan. This was not considered by the NCLT, for the reason that the RP had not disclosed reasons for the plan’s rejection.
Against that backdrop, the NCLT by relying on the narrow scope for intervention with the wisdom of the CoC carved out in CoC of Essar Steel India ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, considered it appropriate to direct the CoC to reconsider the plan, as the wisdom of the CoC in this factual matrix was not aligned with the mandate of the Code. Further, the NCLT felt that liquidation would be a drastic consequence to reach, without exhaustion of all available remedies.
See also: The appropriate forum for entertaining allegations against an outgoing RP is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, and not the Adjudicating Authority. Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. v. Shilpraj Pvt. Developers Pvt. Ltd.
We talk to Dr. M. S. Sahoo, the IBBI Chairperson and the flag-bearer of the Indian insolvency and restructuring industry, on a variety of issues.July 12, 2021
Abbreviations Used Code – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 CIRP – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process AA – Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) CD – Corporate Debtor FC – Financial Creditor OC – Operational Creditor CoC – Committee of Creditors IRP – Interim Resolution Professional RP – Resolution Professional RA – Resolution Applicant – New Delhi Bench VI […]August 15, 2021
Summaries of the noteworthy orders passed by the various NCLT benches in IBC matters.June 14, 2021
Abbreviations Used Code – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 CrPC –The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 CIRP – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process AA – Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) CD – Corporate Debtor FC – Financial Creditor OC – Operational Creditor CoC – Committee of Creditors IRP – Interim Resolution Professional RP – Resolution Professional RA – Resolution […]August 29, 2021
Delhi Bench Section 18 of the Limitation Act is Applicable to IBC Proceedings: Kamlesh Govind Pansuriya v. Bank of India An application u/s. 7 of the Code was filed by the Respondent/Financial Creditor. The date of default was mentioned as 07.06.2016. The Appellant argued that 07.06.2016 was the date on which the account was declared […]July 11, 2021
About the Competition We are trying to introduce a bottom-up approach to the scholarship on judicial decisions. The IBC judgments from the higher judiciary tend to attract most of the media and scholarly attention, and for good reason. But we believe that a more rigorous examination of the NCLT and NCLAT decisions could pre-emptively highlight […]August 1, 2021