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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more