Person Ineligible U/s 29A IBC To Submit Resolution Plan Cannot Propose Scheme Of Compromise & Arrangement U/s 230 Companies Act 2013: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a person who is ineligible under Section 29A of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code to submit a resolution plan, cannot propose a scheme of compromise and arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah also upheld the constitutional validity of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which stipulate that a person who is not eligible under the IBC to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor shall not be a party in any manner to such compromise or arrangement.The Court observed thus while dismissing the appeals against National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and also a writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Regulation 2B Of Liquidation Process Regulations. NCLT, in these cases, held that a person who is ineligible under Section 29A of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code to submit a resolution plan, is also barred from proposing a scheme of compromise and arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013."It would lead to a manifest absurdity if the very persons who are ineligible for submitting a resolution plan, participating in the sale of assets of the company in liquidation or participating in the sale of the corporate debtor as a 'going concern', are somehow permitted to propose a compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Act of 2013.", the Apex Court bench observed.Referring to various precedents and provisions of both IBC and Companies Act 2013, the court observed thus in para 68 of the judgment:The statutory scheme underlying the IBC and the legislative history of its linkage with Section 230 of the Act of 2013, in the context of a company which is in liquidation, has important consequences for the outcome of the controversy in the present case. The first point is that a liquidation under Chapter III of the IBC follows upon the entire gamut of proceedings contemplated under that statute. The second point to be noted is that one of the modes of revival in the course of the liquidation process is envisaged in the enabling provisions of Section 230 of the Act of 2013, to which recourse can be taken by the liquidator appointed under Section 34 of the IBC. The third point is that the statutorily contemplated activities of the liquidator do not cease while inviting a scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230. The appointment of the liquidator in an IBC liquidation is provided in Section 34 and their duties are specified in Section 35. In taking recourse to the provisions of Section 230 of the Act of 2013, the liquidator appointed under the IBC is , above all, to attempt a revival of the corporate debtor so as to save it from the prospect of a corporate death. The consequence of the approval of the scheme of revival or compromise, and its sanction thereafter by the Tribunal under Sub-section (6), is that the scheme attains a binding character upon stakeholders including the liquidator who has been appointed under the IBC. In this backdrop, it is difficult to accept the submission of Mr Bajaj that Section 230 of the Act of 2013 is a standalone provision which has no connect with the provisions of the IBC. Undoubtedly, Section 230 of the Act of 2013 is wider in its ambit in the sense that it is not confined only to a company in liquidation or to corporate debtor which is being wound up under Chapter III of the IBC. Obviously, therefore, the rigors of the IBC will not apply to proceedings under Section 230 of the Act of 2013 where the scheme of compromise or arrangement proposed is in relation to an entity which is not the subject of a proceeding under the IBC. But, when, as in the present case, the process of invoking the provisions of Section 230 of the Act of 2013 traces its origin or, as it may be described, the trigger to the liquidation proceedings which have been initiated under the IBC, it becomes necessary to read both sets of provisions in harmony. A harmonious construction between the two statutes would ensure that while on the one hand a scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 is being pursued, this takes place in a manner which is consistent with the underlying principles of the IBC because the scheme is proposed in respect of an entity which is undergoing liquidation under Chapter III of the IBC. As such, the company has to be protected from its management and a corporate death. It would lead to a manifest absurdity if the very persons who are ineligible for submitting a resolution plan, participating in the sale of assets of the company in liquidation or participating in the sale of the corporate debtor as a 'going concern', are somehow permitted to propose a compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Act of 2013.The court, also rejected the contention that attaching the ineligibilities under Section 29A and Section 35(1)(f) of the IBC to a scheme of compromise and...

Person Ineligible U/s 29A IBC To Submit Resolution Plan Cannot Propose Scheme Of Compromise & Arrangement U/s 230 Companies Act 2013: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Person Ineligible U/s 29A IBC To Submit Resolution Plan Cannot Propose Scheme Of Compromise & Arrangement U/s 230 Companies Act 2013: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers