Skip to main content

IBC: COC not required to follow all procedures in case of MSME

In Saravana Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors, the appellants claimed that they were interested to submit their Resolution Plan but no opportunity was given to them to file the same and that the the Resolution Plan was approved by the COC and allowed by the NCLT without complying the mandatory provisions of the Code. 

The NCLAT held that  it is clear that ‘I&B Code’ envisages maximization of value of the assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ so that they are efficiently run as going concerns and in turn, will promote entrepreneurship. The ‘Committee of Creditors’ is to consider the feasibility, viability and such other requirements as has been specified by the Board. If it proposes maximisation of the assets and is found to be feasible, viable and fulfil all other requirements as specified by the Board, the company being MSME, it is not necessary for the ‘Committee of Creditors’ to follow all the procedures under the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’. For example, if case is settled before the constitution of the ‘Committee of Creditors’ or in terms of Section 12A on the basis of offer given by Promoter, in such case, all other procedure for calling of application of ‘Resolution Applicant’ etc. are not followed. If the Promoter satisfy all the creditors and is in a position to keep the ‘Corporate Debtor’ as a going concern, it is always open to ‘Committee of Creditors’ to accept the terms of settlement and approve it by 90% of the voting shares. The same principle can be followed in the case of MSME.

The Parliament with specific intention amended the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’ by allowing the Promoters of ‘MSME’ to file ‘Resolution Plan’. The intention of the legislature shows that the Promoters of ‘MSME’ should be encouraged to pay back the amount with the satisfaction of the ‘Committee of Creditors’ to regain the control of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and entrepreneurship by filing ‘Resolution Plan’ which is viable, feasible and fulfils other criteria as laid down by the ‘Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India’.

Therefore, we hold that in exceptional circumstances, if the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is MSME, it is not necessary for the Promoters to compete with other ‘Resolution Applicants’ to regain the control of the ‘Corporate Debtor’.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court approved the decision of the NCLAT.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more