Insolvency Application Must Meet Threshold As Per Amended S.4 IBC, Though Notice U/S 8 Was Issued Pre-Amendment : Kerala High Court

The High Court of Kerala in a Bench comprising of Justice T.R. Ravi in the case of M/s Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.National Company Law Tribunal & Ors. held that the litmus test is whether the default exists as defined in amended Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code w.e.f. 24.3.2020, increasing the default amount from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 1 Crore, on the date of the application, and not on the date when the notice was sent to the Corporate Debtor u/s 8 of the Code. Factual Background The Petitioner/ Corporate Debtor filed a petition before the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority under IBC, which allowed the application of the Operational Creditor for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Petitioner contended that the application for initiation of CIRP was filed on 25.09.2020, which was after the order of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated 24.03.2020., which amended Section 4 of the IBC to increase the default amount for initiation of CIRP from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 1 Crore. Issues The High Court framed the following issues in the case- Whether the application which relates to a defaulted amount less than Rs.1 crore can be filed after 24.3.2020, on which date amendment to Section 4 was introduced ? Whether the prospectivity of the amended Section 4 has to be decided on the basis of the defaulted amount or on the basis of the date of default ? Whether the order of the NCLT can be challenged in a proceedings under Article 226 or should the petitioner be relegated to the appellate remedy? Analysis By The High Court The Court analyzed the various amendments that were made to the IBC after it came into force. Maintainability Of Writ Petition The Court took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghnashyam Mishra& Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., wherein it was held that- "Non-exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is a rule of self-restraint. It has been consistently held that the alternate remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, (1) where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (2) where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice; and (3) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged." The Court, thus allowed the writ petition and held that there is no necessity to relegate the Petitioner to exercise the alternate remedy. Jurisdiction Of NCLT With regard to the jurisdiction of the NCLT, the Court held that since the Adjudicating Authority is a creature of the Stature, its jurisdiction is only that which has been statutorily defined, recognized and conferred. The CIRP is triggered as soon as there is a default as mentioned in Section 4 of IBC. When the CIRP is initiated by the Operational Creditor, a notice u/s 8 has to be sent to the Corporate Debtor. After a passage of 10 days thereafter and non-payment by the Corporate Debtor during such period, CIRP can be initiated. In the present case, the notice u/s 8 was issued prior to coming into force of the Amendment to Section 4. If the application for initiating had been filed before 24.3.2020, it would have conformed with the minimum default which had been prescribed at that point of time, i.e. more than Rs. 1 Lakh. However, in the case at hand, the application was filed six months after the amendment. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same. As held by the Supreme Court in ManishKumar v. Union of India- "…existence of a default as defined in Section 4 of the Code is the litmus test on the anvil of which, the Adjudicating Authority gets jurisdiction to entertain an application. The litmus test cannot change depending on whether the application is filed under Sections 7 or 9 or 10. The litmus test is the test for the applicability of the entire Part II." It was also held in Manish Kumar that if a vested right can be taken away by a retrospective law, there is no reason why the legislature cannot modify the vested right. In the present case, the right of the applicant/Operational Creditor to approach the Tribunal stood modified on 24.3.2020. After this date, only applications for defaults of amounts above Rs. 1 Crore can be entertained by the NCLT. The Court held- "Since Section 4 deals with applicability of the provisions of Part II, it is necessarily a provision which gives jurisdiction to the Adjudicating Authority. Once the application of Part II is taken away for debts more than Rs.1 Crore, there is no further jurisdiction available under the Statute to the NCLT to act as an Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. It is hence a clear case of total want of jurisdiction." Default...

Insolvency Application Must Meet Threshold As Per Amended S.4 IBC, Though Notice U/S 8 Was Issued Pre-Amendment : Kerala High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Insolvency Application Must Meet Threshold As Per Amended S.4 IBC, Though Notice U/S 8 Was Issued Pre-Amendment : Kerala High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers