Skip to main content

IBC & RBI circulars do not have primacy over each other

Citation : Reserve Bank of India vs SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited, CP (IB) No.295/KB/2022 and Hemant Kanoria vs Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Through its Administrator, Mr Rajneesh Sharma, IA (IB) No.75/KB/2022

Date of Judgment/Order : 17 May 2022

Court/Tribunal : The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata

Corum : Rajasekhar V.K. Member (Judicial) and Balraj Joshi Member (Technical)

Background

SIFL and SEFL are under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) from 08 October 2021, and Mr Rajneesh Sharma was appointed as the Administrator of SIFL and SEFL.

Axis Bank Limited and UCO Bank appointed KPMG as auditor for SIFL on 23 March 2021. As per the RBI Circular, KPMG was required to complete the audit and give a report within a period of three months from the date of the Joint Lenders Forum (“JLF”) meeting authorising the same. In the present case, the Core Committee Meeting was held on 24 March 2021. Thus, KPMG was required to complete the audit within 24 June 2021. However, KPMG continued with the audit of SIFL even after the initiation of CIRP. Following the initiation of CIRP against SEFL and SIFL, the Administrator appointed BDO India LLP (“BDO”) as the transaction auditor of SEFL and SIFL under the Code on 02 November 2021 to probe vulnerable transactions.

The Applicants filed application objecting that the Insolvency Code had an overriding effect and once a transactional auditor has been appointed under the Code, a previous audit cannot continue.

Judgment

The Hon. NCLT opined that the trial of offences by a Special Court in terms of section 236 of the Code would be restricted to offences under the Code, as laid down by sub-section (1) thereof. Fraud by a banking official, for instance, would not be an offence under the IBC, but under other laws. The scope, purpose and objective of the audit under the RBI is not only to look into the transactions from the perspective of the corporate debtor now functioning under an independent professional, but also to unearth criminality, if any, on the part of bank officials too. Therefore, to say that the KPMG audit should either be stopped, rescinded or otherwise consigned to the bin, is not something that commends itself to us.

Therefore, we hold that this Adjudicating Authority, with the powers vested under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, lacks the jurisdiction to stop an audit commissioned under RBI circulars, the intent of which is altogether different.

Therefore, the Code and the RBI circulars work in different fields and are, in a manner of speaking, disjoint sets. The adequacy or otherwise of KPMG’s audit report would no doubt be determined by the lenders. We do not see any possibility of conflict between the two. There is no question of one prevailing over the other.

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