The Corporate Debtor went into CIRP vide the Adjudicating Authority (AA) order dated 20.09.2019 and Mr. Hemant Mehta (Appellant) got appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
NCLT held that the “interest” component alone cannot be claimed or pursued, in absence of the debt, to trigger a CIRP against the corporate Debtor. Further, the application pursued realization of the interest amount alone is against the intent of the IBC, 2016.
The NCLAT ruling, on the other hand, may present some difficulties for banks that have extended bank guarantees. When the IBC imposes a moratorium period, recouping funds paid under bank guarantees from a corporate debtor may be difficult.
Claims that do not form part of the resolution plan will be extinguished on the date of the adjudicating authority’s acceptance of the resolution plan. This ruling has reaffirmed the IBC’s goal, which is for the Corporate Debtor to start over with a clean slate based on the resolution plan.
If the corporate debtor’s resolution plan was authorised and declared binding on the corporate debtor and its workers, members, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders under Section 31 of the Code, criminal proceedings under Section 138 will continue.
The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application and held that it is a case of collusive Application whereby the Corporate Debtor is trying to seek benefits of Moratorium u/s 14 of the IBC and other advantages in accordance with other provisions of IBC 2016.
If the Application filed under Section 7 meets all the requirements, then also the Adjudicating Authority has to exercise discretion carefully to prevent and protect the Corporate Debtor from being dragged into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process mala fide.
This judgement is a step in the right direction because it recognizes the authority of a non-petitioning creditor to request for a transfer of the winding up proceedings. It assures that A creditor is not deprived of their right just because they didn’t participate in the initial winding up procedure against corporate debtor.
Calcutta High Courts held that moratorium under Section 14 of IBC also includes criminal proceedings for cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thus parallel proceedings against a corporate debtor cannot be allowed.
The Supreme Court of India defined Section 60(5) of the Code as a residuary jurisdiction vested in the NCLT, allowing the NCLT to decide all questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to the corporate debtor’s insolvency resolution or liquidation under the Code.
A resolution plan under Regulation 37, shall provide for the measures, for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor for maximization of value of its assets.
whereas legislation like RERA provides for individual remedies against the Builder, the IBC Code gives collective control over the affairs and management of the Corporate Debtor to its financial creditors.
This isn’t the first time the NCLAT has ruled that, IBC rules take precedence over other laws, such as the attachment of corporate debtor’s assets under the PMLA.
Resolution applicants enter the CIRP and prepare “Resolution Plans,” which are effectively instruments for taking over a corporate debtor, paying its creditors’ debts, and completing its recovery and restructuring.
The NCLT and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) have to ensure that they do not usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of other courts, tribunals and for when the dispute is one which does not arise solely from or relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.
join For Updates