Skip to main content

IBC: COC has to follow IBC rules and not bound to be fair and equitable

In Pratap Technocrats (p) Ltd. & Ors vs Monitoring Committee Of Reliance Infratel Limited, the appellants alleged that the treatment of the COC towards operational creditors on the ground that it has not been fair and equitable. That the decision of the CoC must reflect that it has taken into account the need to: (i) Maximize the value of assets of the CD; and (ii) Adequately balance the interest of all stakeholders, including of operational creditors.

The Supreme Court observed that in K Sashidhar vs India Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150 (K Sashidhar) it has been emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority is circumscribed by Section 31 to scrutinizing the resolution plan as approved by the CoC under Section 30(4). Moreover, even within the scope of that enquiry, the grounds on which the Adjudicating Authority can reject the plan is with reference to the matters specified in sub-Section (2) of Section 30. Similarly, the Court notes that the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal against an approved resolution plan is defined by sub-Section (3) of Section 61.

Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531, clarify that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the CoC has applied its mind to the statutory requirements spelt out in sub-Section (2) of Section 30, it must then pass the resolution plan. The decision also emphasises that equitable treatment of creditors is equitable treatment only within the same class. In this context, the judgment contains an elaborate foundation on the basis of which it has held that financial creditors belong to a class distinct from operational creditors.

These decisions have laid down that the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority cannot extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom. Nor is there a residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority to interfere in this decision, so long as it is otherwise in conformity with the provisions of the IBC and the Regulations under the enactment.

Once the requirements of the IBC have been fulfilled, the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority are duty bound to abide by the discipline of the statutory provisions. It needs no emphasis that neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Authority have an unchartered jurisdiction in equity. The jurisdiction arises within and as a product of a statutory framework. 

Unlike some foreign courts which allow resolution/reorganization plans to be challenged on grounds of fairness and equity, under the Indian insolvency regime, it appears that a conscious choice has been made by the legislature to not confer any independent equity based jurisdiction on the Adjudicating Authority other than the statutory requirements laid down under sub-Section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC.

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