NCLT Has Discretion To Not Admit Financial Creditor's CIRP Application Even If Corporate Debtor Is In Default : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

13 July 2022 7:42 AM GMT

  • NCLT Has Discretion To Not Admit Financial Creditors CIRP Application Even If Corporate Debtor Is In Default : Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court observed that it is not mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to admit an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process even if a debt existed and the Corporate debtor is in default.However, such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari cautioned.The court...

    The Supreme Court observed that it is not mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to admit an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process even if a debt existed and the Corporate debtor is in default.

    However, such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari cautioned.

    The court observed that, ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition.

    Section 7(5) IBC

    Under, Section 7(5), where the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) is satisfied that a default has occurred and the application under sub-Section (2) of the IBC is complete and there is no disciplinary proceeding against the proposed Resolution Professional, it may by order, admit such application. If default has not occurred, or the application is incomplete, or any disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed Resolution Professional, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) may reject such application in terms of Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC, but after giving the applicant opportunity to rectify the defect.

    Background

    In this case, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) proceeded on the premises that an application must necessarily be entertained under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC, if a debt existed and the Corporate Debtor was in default of payment of debt. In other words, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) found Section 7(5) (a) of the IBC to be mandatory. 

    Before the Apex Court, it was contended that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has chosen to use the expression "may" in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC and therefore the provision is directory.

    The issue therefore considered in the appeal was whether Section 7(5)(a) is a mandatory or a discretionary provision?

    The Adjudicating Authority may in its discretion not admit the application of a Financial Creditor

    The bench noted that the expression 'shall' is used in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5) of the IBC relating to the initiation of CIRP by an Operational Creditor. The court, therefore, said:

    "The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that 'may' and 'shall' in the two provisions are intended to convey a different meaning. It is apparent that Legislature intended Section 9(5)(a) of the IBC to be mandatory and Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC to be discretionary. An application of an Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9(2) of the IBC is mandatorily required to be admitted if the application is complete in all respects and in compliance of the requisites of the IBC and the rules and regulations thereunder, there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, if notices for payment or the invoice has been delivered to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor and no notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor. The IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an operational creditor..

    .....On the other hand, in the case of an application by a Financial Creditor who might even initiate proceedings in a representative capacity on behalf of all financial creditors, the Adjudicating Authority might examine the expedience of initiation of CIRP, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including the overall financial health and viability of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority may in its discretion not admit the application of a Financial Creditor."

    Even though Section 7 (5)(a) of the IBC may confer discretionary power on the Adjudicating Authority, such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. In this regard, the bench observed:

    Ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit an application under Section 7 of the IBC of the IBC and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition.. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has to consider the grounds made out by the Corporate Debtor against admission, on its own merits. For example when admission is opposed on the ground of existence of an award or a decree in favour of the Corporate Debtor, and the Awarded/decretal amount exceeds the amount of the debt, the Adjudicating Authority would have to exercise its discretion under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC to keep the admission of the application of the Financial Creditor in abeyance, unless there is good reason not to do so. The Adjudicating Authority may, for example, admit the application of the Financial Creditor, notwithstanding any award or decree, if the Award/Decretal amount is incapable of realisation. The example is only illustrative.

    The court noted that, in this case, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has simply brushed aside the case of the corporate debtor that an amount of Rs.1,730 Crores was realizable by it in terms of the order passed by APTEL in its favour. The bench therefore allowed and directed NCLT to re-consider the application of the Appellant for stay of further proceedings on merits in accordance with law.

    Case details

    Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs Axis Bank Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587| CA  4633 OF 2021 | 12 July 2022

    Coram: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari

    Counsel: Sr. Adv Jaideep Gupta for appellant, Sr. Adv Dhruv Mehta for respondent

    Headnotes

    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ; Section 7(5)(a) - The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has been conferred the discretion to admit the application of the Financial Creditor. If facts and circumstances so warrant, the Adjudicating Authority can keep the admission in abeyance or even reject the application. Of course, in case of rejection of an application, the Financial Creditor is not denuded of the right to apply afresh for initiation of CIRP, if its dues continue to remain unpaid - The Adjudicating Authority might examine the expedience of initiation of CIRP, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including the overall financial health and viability of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority may in its discretion not admit the application of a Financial Creditor. (Para 77-79)

    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ; Section 7(5)(a) - Ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit an application under Section 7 of the IBC of the IBC and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition - It has to consider the grounds made out by the Corporate Debtor against admission, on its own merits. (Para 87-88)

    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ; Section 9 - Section 9(5)(a) mandatory - An application of an Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9(2) of the IBC is mandatorily required to be admitted if the application is complete in all respects and in compliance of the 28 requisites of the IBC and the rules and regulations thereunder, there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, if notices for payment or the invoice has been delivered to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor and no notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor. The IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an operational creditor. (Para 76)

    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 -The Legislature has consciously differentiated between Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors, as there is an innate difference between Financial Creditors, in the business of investment and financing, and Operational Creditors in the business of supply of goods and services. Financial credit is usually secured and of much longer duration. Such credits, which are often long term credits, on which the operation of the Corporate Debtor depends, cannot be equated to operational debts which are usually unsecured, of a shorter duration and of lesser amount. The financial strength and nature of business of a Financial Creditor cannot be compared with that of an Operational Creditor, engaged in supply of goods and services. The impact of the non-payment of admitted dues could be far more serious on an Operational Creditor than on a financial creditor. (Para 78)

    Words and Phrases - May and Shall - Ordinarily the word "may" is directory. The expression 'may admit' confers discretion to admit. In contrast, the use of the word "shall" postulates a mandatory requirement. The use of the word "shall" raises a presumption that a provision is imperative. However, the prima facie presumption about the provision being imperative may be rebutted by other considerations such as the scope of the enactment and the consequences flowing from the construction. (Para 64)

    Interpretation of Statutes - First and foremost principle of interpretation of a statute is the rule of literal interpretation - Purposive interpretation can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or if construed literally, the provision would nullify the object of the statute or otherwise lead to an absurd result. (Para 65-69)

    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 -Intended to consolidate and amend the laws with a view to reorganize Corporate Debtors and resolve insolvency in a time bound manner for maximization of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor - The statute deals with and/or tackles insolvency and bankruptcy. It is certainly not the object of the IBC to penalize solvent companies, temporarily defaulting in repayment of its financial debts, by initiation of CIRP. (Para 80-81)

    Precedents - A judgment is a precedent for the question of law that is raised and decided. The language used in a judgment cannot be read like a statute. In any case, words and phrases in the judgment cannot be construed in a truncated manner out of context. (Para 84)

    Click here to read/download the judgment




    Next Story