Skip to main content

Bankruptcy Code - Difference between Financial and Operational Creditor is reasonable

In Akshay Jhunjhunwala & Anr. Vs.Union of India through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors., the petitioner stated before the Calcutta High Court that according to him The Bankruptcy Code of 2016 makes a distinction between a financial creditor and an operational creditor in respect of a corporate debtor which does not have a rational and intelligible basis. The differentiation between the two categories of creditors being unintelligible and irrational, the provisions of Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Code of 2016 should be struck down.

The Court stated that a company has various stakeholders. Creditors of a company are one of the stakeholders. Prior to the concepts of financial and operational creditors being introduced through the Code of 2016, a creditor of a company was classified broadly under three categories, namely, secured creditor, unsecured creditor and statutory creditor.

The Code of 2016 segregates creditors of a company into two broad categories of financial and operational creditor. In addition to the three classifications of creditors existing prior to the Code of 2016, it now seeks to introduce financial and operational creditors. The definition of financial creditor appears in Section 5(7) which is to be read along with Section 5(8) and Section 3(10) of the Code of 2016.

Classification amongst similarly situated persons is permissible if the classification is based on reasonable differentia. If the classification is on reasonable differentia it does not offend the principle of equality. Consequently, creditors of a company can be classified, provided the classification is on reasonable differentia.

The differentia introduced by the Code of 2016 in respect of a creditor of a company does not offend any provisions of the Constitution of India. At least the same is not the argument of the parties before Court. What has been argued is that, the differentiation between the two creditors is such that, one of the classified creditors, that is to say, the financial creditor takes precedence over the operational creditor. Whether the treatment of a financial creditor on pedestal higher than an operational creditor and bestowing a higher or better right, so to speak, to a financial creditor is just and proper or whether the same offends any provisions of the Constitution of India requires consideration.

The Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee deliberated on who should be on the creditors committee, given the power of the credits committee to ultimately keep the entity as a going concern or liquidate it. The Committee reasoned that members of the creditors committee have to be creditors both with the capability to access viability, as well as to be willing to modify terms of existing liabilities in negotiations. Typically, operational creditors are neither able to decide on matters regarding the insolvency of the entity, nor willing to take the risk of postponing payments for better future prospects for the entity. The Committee concluded that, for the process to be rapid and efficient, the Code will provide that the creditors committee should be restricted to only the financial creditors."
An operational creditor is not ousted in its entirety from coming into the committee of creditors. An operational creditor does not have a voting right in the event it is in the committee of creditors.

The Court while dismissing the appeal held that Code of 2016 is in the economic sphere and the Supreme Court in Bhavesh D. Parish & Ors. v. Union of India and Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. P. Laxmi Devi has decided that the Court should be slow in staying the applicability of a piece of legislation particularly in the economic spheres even if arguable points are raised unless such provisions are manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional. The Bankruptcy Committee gives a rationale to the financial creditors being treated in a particular way vis-à-vis an operational creditor in an insolvency proceeding with regard to a company. The rationale is a plausible view taken for an expeditious resolution of an insolvency issue of a company. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more