Section
60 (5) of IBC 2016 & its parameter DEFINED
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Code (IBC) 2016 after its enactment and in the proceedings before National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and before
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) are flooded with applications by third
party applicants such as Resolution Applicants (RAs) and also by the Financial
Creditor (FC) or Operational Creditor (OC), once, the insolvency petition is
admitted and resolution professionals are appointed for Corporate Insolvency
resolution proceedings (CIRP) and the outlet for preferring such application is
provided under Section 60(5) of the IBC Code 2016.The Resolution Professionals(RP)
on behalf of CoC ( Committee of Creditors) also prefer applications in respect
of CIRP of Corporate Debtor (CD) company and therefore, section 60(5) of the IBC
2016 is in vogue and its parameter are now redrawn by Supreme Court.
The
Supreme Court in a matter reported as 2024 INSC 102
GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs PRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR (Civil Appeal Nos.7590-7591 of 2023) has dealt
with the parameter of section 60(5) of the Code in greater detail.
The Supreme Court had to deal with the issue in view
of the fact that vide order
dated 05.04.2021, NCLT had dismissed the application filed by the appellant
under Section 60(5) of the IBC in Company Petition No. (IB)-272 (ND)/ 2019 and
the NCLAT had also dismissed the Company Appeal No. 867 of 2021 and CP, whereby
the appellant was Seeking to recall the order inter alia, questioning the decision of the Resolution Professional(RP) in
treating the appellant as an Operational Creditor and not informing the
appellant about the meetings of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The NCLAT had
dismissed the appeal preferred u/s 62 of the Code and therefore the Civil Appeal
was preferred before the hon’ble Supreme Court for adjudication of the ambit of
Section 60(5) of the Code apart from other facets of CIRP.
The following issues in Greater
Noida (Supra) therefore have emerged arisen for consideration of Supreme Court
in the appeal:
(i) Whether in exercise of powers under
sub-section (5) of Section 60, the Adjudicating Authority (i.e.NCLT) can recall
an order of approval passed under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the IBC?.
(ii) Whether the application for recall
of the order was barred by time?
(iii) Whether the resolution plan put
forth by the Resolution Applicant did not meet the requirements of sub-section
(2) of Section 30 of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP
Regulations, 2016?
(iv) As to what relief, if any, the
appellant is entitled to?
The
paragraphs no. 29,30 and 32 of Greater Noida (Supra) shall be worthy of
reference. It is held/observed as under:
29. Explaining the scheme of the CIRP under
the IBC, in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons
(P) Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657 (paragraph 93), a three-Judge Bench of this Court
observed that one of the principal objects of the IBC is to provide for revival
of the Corporate Debtor (CD) and to make it a going concern. The RP on
commencement of CIRP is required to issue a publication inviting claims from
all the stakeholders; thereafter, on basis of claims received, the RP is
required to collate the information and submit necessary details in the
information memorandum; the resolution applicant(s) submit their plan(s) on the
basis of the details provided in the information memorandum; the resolution
plan(s) undergo deep scrutiny by RP as well as COC; in the negotiations that
may be held between COC and the resolution applicant, various modifications may
be made so as to ensure that while paying part of the dues of financial
creditors as well as operational creditors and other stakeholders, the CD is
revived and is made an ongoing concern; after COC approves the plan, the
adjudicating authority is required to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that
the plan conforms to the requirements as are provided in sub-section (2) of
Section 30 of IBC; and only thereafter, the adjudicating authority can grant
its approval to the plan”.
“30. What is clear from the provisions of the
IBC and the Regulations noticed above is, that the RP is under a statutory
obligation to collate the data obtained from (a) the claim(s) made before it
and (b) information gathered from the records including those maintained by the
CD. The data so collated forms part of the information memorandum. Based on
that information, the resolution applicant(s) submit(s) plan. In consequence,
even if a claim submitted by a creditor against the CD is in a Form not as
specified in the CIRP Regulations, 2016, the same has to be given due
consideration by the IRP or the RP, as the case may be, if it is otherwise
verifiable, either from the proof submitted by the creditor or from the records
maintained by the CD. A fortiori, if a claim is submitted by an
operational creditor claiming itself as a financial creditor, the claim would
have to be accorded due consideration in the category to which it belongs
provided it is verifiable”.
32.
In Jaypee Kensington Boulevard
Apartments Welfare Association vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.,
(2022) 1 SCC 401, a three- Judge Bench of this Court had
occasion to examine the scope of judicial review exercisable by: (a) the
Adjudicating Authority, under Section 31 (1), over a resolution plan approved
by the COC; and (b) the Appellate Authority exercising its power under Section
32 read with Section 61 (3) of the IBC. After examining the relevant provisions
of the IBC and the Regulations framed thereunder, and upon a survey of various
judicial pronouncements on the subject, the scope of judicial review was
summarised as follows:
“108.
To
put in a nutshell, the adjudicating authority has limited jurisdiction in the
matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is well defined and
circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Code read with the parameters
delineated by this Court in the decisions above referred. The jurisdiction of
the appellate authority is also circumscribed by the limited grounds of appeal
provided in Section 61 of the Code. In the adjudicatory process concerning a
resolution plan under IBC, there is no scope for interference with the
commercial aspects of the decision of the CoC; and there is no scope for
substituting any commercial term of the resolution plan approved by the CoC.
Within its limited jurisdiction, if the adjudicating authority or the appellate
authority, as the case may be, would find any shortcoming in the resolution
plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters, it would only send the resolution plan
back to the Committee of Creditors, for re-submission after satisfying the
parameters delineated by the Code and exposited by this Court”.
The Supreme Court has held that in the present case,
a perusal of the approval order dated
04.08.2020 would reveal that the resolution plan put forth by the resolution
applicant refers to the appellant as a creditor who had not submitted its
claim. Further, the dues shown payable to the appellant are Rs. 13,47,40,819/-
when, according to the appellant, its claim was for Rs. 43,40,31,951/- Not only
that, the amount proposed to be paid is just Rs.1,34,74,082/-, that too,
payable by conversion of dues into square feet of area to be completed and
payment to be made, on square feet basis, at the time of registration of each
of the units.
In Budhia
Swain vs. Gopinath Deb(1999)
4 SCC 396 , after
considering a number of decisions, a two-Judge Bench of this Court observed:
“8.
In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall an order earlier made by it if
(i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the
inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent,
(ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment,
(iii) there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a party,
or
(iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a
necessary party had not been served at all or had died and the estate was not
represented.
The
power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for reopening
the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the
original action, but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other
proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not
availed. The right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by waiver,
estoppel or acquiescence.”
The Power of
review
The
Full bench of NCLAT In a recent decision captioned as Union Bank of India vs. Dinakar T.
Vekatasubramanian & Ors.) has held that though the power to review is not conferred
upon the Tribunal but power to recall its judgment is inherent in the Tribunal
and is preserved by Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. It was held that power of
recall of a judgment can be exercised when any procedural error is committed in
delivering the earlier judgment; for example, necessary party has not been
served or necessary party was not before the Tribunal when judgment was
delivered adverse to a party. It was observed that there may be other grounds
for recall of a judgment one of them being where fraud is played on the Court
in obtaining a judgment.
The
Supreme Court has noted that decision of NCLAT was upheld by a two-Judge Bench
of the Supreme Court vide
order dated 31.07.2023 in Civil Appeal No.4620 of 2023
(Union Bank of India vs. Financial Creditors of M/s Amtek Auto Ltd. & Ors.).
Thus,
it is obvious that a Court or a Tribunal, in absence of any provision to the
contrary, has inherent power to recall an order to secure the ends of justice
and/or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Neither the IBC nor the
Regulations framed thereunder, in any way, prohibit, exercise of such inherent
power. Rather, Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, which opens with a non-obstante
clause, empowers the NCLT (the Adjudicating Authority) to entertain or dispose
of any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of
or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the
corporate debtor or corporate person under the IBC. Moreover, Rule 11 of the NCLT
Rules, 2016 also preserves the inherent power of the Tribunal. Therefore, even
in absence of a specific provision empowering the Tribunal to recall its order,
the Tribunal has power to recall its order. However, such power is to be exercised
sparingly, and not as a tool to re-hear the matter. Ordinarily, though, an
application for recall of an order is maintainable on limited grounds, inter
alia, where:
(a)
the order is without jurisdiction;
(b) the party aggrieved with the order is not served with
notice of the proceedings in which the order under recall has been passed; and
(c) the order has been obtained by misrepresentation of facts
or by playing fraud upon the Court /Tribunal resulting in gross failure of
justice.
According
to Supreme Court what therefore clearly emerges is that a Tribunal or a Court
is inherently invested with such ancillary or incidental powers as may be
necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing
justice between the parties to the lis and unless, any statutory prohibition is
there, in an appropriate case, a court or tribunal can recall its order in
exercise of such ancillary or incidental powers.
The
Supreme Court has held categorically that the resolution plan did not meet the
requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the
CIRP Regulations, 2016 for the following reasons:
a. The resolution
plan disclosed that the appellant did not submit its claim, when the unrebutted
case of the appellant had been that it had submitted its claim with proof on
30.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.43,40,31,951/- Even if the record indicated that the
appellant was advised to submit its claim in Form B (meant for operational
creditor) in place of Form C (meant of financial creditor), however, the claim
of the appellant could not be sidetracked ,merely because it was filed in a
different Form, since submission of Form shall be directory and the
relevant criteria shall be that the
claim should be lodged with proof . Not acknowledging the claim under
resolution plan, but there was omission and errors which substantially affected
the resolution plan. It was further observed that withholding the information
adversely affected the interest of the appellant because, firstly, it affected
its right of being served notice of the meeting of the COC, available under
Section 24 (3) (c) of the IBC to an operational creditor with aggregate dues of
not less than ten percent of the debt and, secondly, in the proposed plan,
outlay for the appellant got reduced, being a percentage of the dues payable.
The resolution plan thus stood vitiated and
NCLT and NCLAT failed to take note of that.
b. The resolution
plan did not specifically place the appellant in the category of a secured
creditor even though, by virtue of Section 13-A of the 1976 Act, in respect of
the amount payable to it, a charge was created on the assets of the CD. As per
Regulation 37 of the CIRP Regulations 2016, a resolution plan must provide for
the measures, as may be necessary, for insolvency resolution of the CD for
maximization of value of its assets, including, but not limited to,
satisfaction or modification of any security interest. Further, as per Explanation 1,
distribution under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 must be fair and
equitable to each class of creditors. Non placement of the appellant in the
class of secured creditors did affect its interest. The NCLT and NCLAT failed
to notice that anomaly.
c. No doubt, ordinarily,
feasibility and viability of a plan are economic decisions best left to the
commercial wisdom of the COC. However, where the plan envisages use of land not
owned by the CD but by a third party, such as the appellant, which is a
statutory body, bound by its own rules and regulations having statutory
flavour, there has to be a closer examination of the plan’s feasibility. The CD
had defaulted in payment of installments and that allegedly, resulted in
raising of demand and issuance of pre-cancellation notice. In these circumstances,
whether the resolution plan envisaged necessary approvals of the statutory authority
is an important aspect on which feasibility of the plan depends. The order of
approval did not envisage such approvals. But neither NCLT nor NCLAT dealt with
those aspects
The
Supreme Court has observed in Greater Noida (Supra) that the recall application
was filed by the appellant claiming inter
alia that-
(a)
the appellant was not informed of the meetings of the COC;
(b) the proceedings up to the stage of approval of the
resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority were ex parte;
(c) the RP misrepresented that the appellant had submitted no
claim when, otherwise, a claim was submitted of an amount higher than what was
shown outstanding towards the appellant; and
(d) there was gross mistake on part of the Adjudicating
Authority in approving the plan which did not fulfill the conditions laid down
in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC.
The
aforesaid contentions of the appellant was vital and could not have been
ignored. The hon’ble Supreme Court has further noted that NCLT as well as NCLAT while deciding the
application /appeal failed to note that-
(a) the
appellant had not been served notice of the meeting of the COC;
(b)
the entire proceedings up to the stage of approval of the resolution plan were ex parte to the appellant;
(c) the
appellant had submitted its claim, and was a secured creditor by operation of
law, yet the resolution plan projected the appellant as one who did not submit
its claim; and
(d) the
resolution plan did not meet all the parameters laid down in sub-section (2) of
Section 30 of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations,
2016
Time barred
Claim
The Supreme Court has held that the Recall
Application was not barred by time, since, I.A. No.344/ 2021 was filed on 6.10.2020
upon getting information on 24.09.2020 from the monitoring agency regarding
approval of the plan. Likewise, I.A. No.1380/ 2021 was filed on 15.03.2021
immediately when suspension of the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,
application or proceeding, between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021, was lifted in
terms of this Court’s order dated 8.03.2021 in RE: Cognizance For Extension
of Limitation (supra).
Thus, the plea that the applications were barred by limitation was untenable. It
was also held that the Resolution Plan did not meet the requirements of
Section 30 (2) of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP
Regulations, 2016.
Thus, the Supreme Court had allowed the
appeal of the appellant. The order dated 04.08.2020 passed by the NCLT
approving the resolution plan is set aside. The resolution plan was sent back
to the COC for re-submission after satisfying the parameters set out by the
Code as exposited above.
-------------
Anil K Khaware
Founder & Senior Associate
Societylawandjustice.com
No comments:
Post a Comment