Skip to main content

Financial Service Providers having asset size less than Rs. 500 crores cannot be a Corporate Debtors under IBC

In SHAPOORJI PALLONJI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs REKHA SINGH, three separate  applications was filed before NCLT Jaipur by the Applicant as Financial Creditor under under Section 60 & 95 of IBC read with Rule 7(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019 to initiate insolvency resolution process against Rekha Singh,  Ajay Kumar Singh and Siddharth Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Personal Guarantors / Applicants). 

Background

According to the Applicant, the Personal Guarantors had through a personal guarantee secured repayment of a term loan of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- advanced by the petitioner to Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited, an NBFC , under facility agreement dated 27.03.2018. However, the Debtor had failed to make payment of interest amounts for the months of September 2020 & October & October 2020 and also failed to repay the principal amount instalment for the quarter ending in September 2020.

In reply, the Personal Guarantors filed application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ('IBC' / 'Code'),2016 read with Rule 49 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, questioning the maintainability of the application filed against them and among the various objection filed by them, they pointed out that the definition of a 'Corporate Person' as per the IBC excludes Financial Service Providers such as Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited.

Judgment

The NCLT observed that the Principal Borrower, i.e. Jumbo Finvest (India) Ltd. is a Financial Service Provider having been granted a Certificate of Registration to commence / carry on the business of Non-Banking Financial Institution without accepting public deposits, by the RBI which ordinarily would exclude it from the Insolvency proceedings as per Section 3(7) of the Code.

However, the NCLT also observed that before coming to any conclusion, it must be noted that by the powers provided to the Central Govt. under Section 227 of the Code, two notifications being vide notification G.S.R. 852(E) dated 15.11 .2019 notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency and Liquidation Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicatory Authority) Rules, 2Ol9 (referred to as 'FSP Rules'). and Notification S.O. 4139(E) dated 18.11 .2019 (referred to as 'FSP Threshold Notification') have been introduced and as laid down in the above notifications, the expression 'Corporate Debtor' wherever they occur, shall mean "financial service provider" but subject to a threshold limit of asset size of Rs. 500 crores and above. As per the last audited balance sheet of Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited for year ending on 3 1 .03.2020, the asset size is approx. Rs. 487 crores and as per unaudited figures for the year ending 3 1 .03.2021, the total asset size of Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited is approx. Rs. 407 Crores. Therefore, Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited, is excluded. 

The NCLT also provided a flow chart as under to explain the different definitions  revolving around Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditors and their relation with the Financial Service providers :

Note

The above issue displays one of the many reasons behind the delay in the Indian legal process. Inexplicably, without changing the definition of the 'Corporate Person; which clearly excludes Financial Service Provider', as new rule was introduced to deal with the FSPs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more