Skip to main content

NCLAT:Law on maintainability of Compromise and Arrangement application by Promoter during pendency of Liquidation under IBC clarified

In Company Appeal (AT) No. 221 of 2018, IN THE MATTER OF Jindal Steel and Power Limited vs Arun Kumar Jagatramka, appeal was preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013  against order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench by which the Tribunal in an application under Section 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, preferred by Promoter – Arun Kumar Jagatramka ordered for taking steps for Financial Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement between Applicant - Arun Kumar Jagatramka (Promoter) and the Company (‘Corporate Debtor’) through the ‘Liquidator’, after holding the debts of shareholders, creditors etc. in terms of Section 230 of the Companies Act.

The Appellant has challenged the same on following grounds:-
(i) Whether in a liquidation proceeding under IBC, the Scheme for Compromise and Arrangement can be made in terms of Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act?
(ii) If so permissible, whether the Promoter is eligible to file an application for Compromise and Arrangement, while he is ineligible under Section 29-A IBC to submit a ‘Resolution Plan’?

The Appellate Tribunal answered the first question in affirmative. It relied on the earlier decision in T. Shivram Prasad v. Dhanapal, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 224 of 2018, decided on 27-2-2019, to hold that: “In a Liquidation proceeding under IBC, a petition under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act is maintainable.”.
For answering the second question, the Appellate Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 of 2019, and held that: “Even during the period of Liquidation, for the purpose of Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, the Corporate Debtor is to be saved from its own management, meaning thereby — the Promoters, who are ineligible under Section 29-A, are not entitled to file application for Compromise and Arrangement in their favour under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act.”.

Reference was also made to the proviso to clause (f) of Section 35 IBC, which makes it clear that the Promoter, if ineligible under Section 29-A, cannot make an application for Compromise and Arrangement for taking back the immovable and movable property or the actionable claims of the Corporate Debtor.

The NCLAT finally held that rom the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Promoter, if ineligible under Section 29A cannot make an application for Compromise and Arrangement for taking back the immovable and movable property or actionable claims of the ‘Corporate Debtor’.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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