IBC | Statutory Set Off Or Insolvency Set Off Inapplicable To Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held statutory set off or insolvency set off is not applicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Further, Regulation 29 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (“Liquidation Regulations”), which provides for mutual dealing and set off, does not apply to Part II of the IBC which deals with CIRP.The principle of Set-off recognizes the right of a debtor to adjust the smaller claim owed to him against the larger claim payable to his creditor.The Bench has also carved out two exceptions to the application of statutory or insolvency set off to CIRP proceedings. First being, when a party is entitled to contractual set-off, on the date which is effective before or on the date of commencement of CIRP. Secondly, in cases of 'equitable set-off' when the claim and counter claim in the form of set-off are linked and connected on account of one or more transactions that can be treated as one.The Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, has observed that Section 30(2)(b) does not support the plea of insolvency set-off, since the provision deals with the amounts to be paid to creditors and not amount payable by creditors to Corporate Debtor. Further, the specific legislative mandate given in Chapter II Part II of IBC, the provisions of IBC relating to CIRP do not recognize the principle of insolvency set-off. “We would not extend it by implication, when the legislature has not accepted applicability of mutual set-off at the initial stage, that is, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process stage.”BACKGROUND FACTSIn 2016, Bharti Airtel Limited and Bharti Hexacom Limited (collectively, “Airtel Entities/Appellants”) entered into eight spectrum trading agreements with Aircel Limited and Dishnet Wireless Limited (collectively, “Aircel Entities”), for purchase of the right to use the spectrum allocated to the latter in the 2300 MHz band. In view of the same, the Airtel Entities were to pay Rs.4,022.75 crores to the Aircel entities.The agreement was contingent on approval of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) which demanded bank guarantees from the Aircel entities. Upon request, Airtel entities furnished bank guarantees to DoT on behalf of Aircel entities. The bank guarantees were returned and accordingly, Airtel entities became liable to pay the balance amount in terms of the letters of understanding to Aircel entities.In 2018, Aircel Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd. were admitted into CIRP under IBC by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). In 2019, the Airtel entities paid Rs. 341.80 crores due to the Aircel entities and the balance amount of Rs.145.20 crores was set-off by the Airtel entities towards operational charges, SMS charges and interconnect usage charges to the Airtel entities.The Airtel Entities submitted a claim of Rs.203.46 crores in the CIRP of Aircel Entities which was admitted by Resolution Professional to the extent of Rs. 112 Crores. However, the Airtel entities also owed Rs. 64.11 crores towards interconnect charges to the Aircel entities.The Resolution Professional informed Bharti Airtel Limited that they he has suo moto adjusted Rs.112.87 crores from the amount payable by Airtel entities to Aircel entities, consequent to the discharge and cancellation of bank guarantees. The Airtel entities claimed set-off of the amount due to them by Aircel entities.On 01.05.2019, the NCLT held that Airtel entities had a right to set off Rs.112.87 crores from the payment, which was retained, and due and payable to Aircel entities.The Resolution Professional filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) against the order dated 01.05.2019. On 17.05.2019, the NCLAT allowed the appeal and held that Set-off is antithetical to the objective of IBC. It was further held that moratorium under Section 14(4) of IBC applies till the date of completion of CIRP, which is till the resolution plan is approved or the liquidation order is passed, thus to permit set-off will be contrary to law. Also, the set-off being claimed is in respect of two separate and unrelated transactions was impermissible. The Airtel entities filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the order dated 17.05.2019.SUPREME COURT VERDICTThe issue before the Bench was regarding right to claim set-off in CIRP, when the Resolution Professional proceeds in terms of Section 25(2)(a) of IBC to take custody and control of assets of Corporate Debtor.The Bench examined the different kinds of set off such as (a) statutory or legal set-off; (b) common law set-off; (c) equitable set-off; (d) contractual set-off; and (e) insolvency set-off. While analyzing statutory setoff, the Court observed that the same is created by a statute. For set-off in law, the obligations existing between the two parties must be debts which are for liquidated sums or money...

IBC | Statutory Set Off Or Insolvency Set Off Inapplicable To Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: Supreme Court

Pallavi Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

IBC | Statutory Set Off Or Insolvency Set Off Inapplicable To Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: Supreme Court

Pallavi Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers