Transfer of Proceedings from Courts to NCLT: The Calcutta High Court’s View

A question that has often come up since the Companies Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) came into force is how will proceedings ongoing before the High Courts be transferred to the National Companies Law Tribunal (NCLT)? Section 434(1)(c) of the 2013 Act deals with transfer of “all proceedings” under the Companies Act, 1956[1] to the NCLT. For winding up proceedings, this provision states that only such proceedings relating to winding up, which are at a certain stage as prescribed by central Government, are to be transferred to the NCLT. Another part of this provision, meanwhile, deals with cases other than winding up proceedings, which may not be transferred to the NCLT.[2] A reading of all the various provisions leads to the conclusion that not all proceedings under the 1956 Act pending before the District Courts and High Courts are to be transferred to the NCLT. Continue Reading Transfer of Proceedings from Courts to NCLT: The Calcutta High Court’s View

Share transfer restrictions come in various shapes and sizes and in so far as they relate to shares of public companies, their validity has been a topic of hot debate. In several cases, Indian courts have considered and opined on the legality of contractual restrictions on the transfer of shares of public companies. The position in this regard now appears to be much clearer than before with changes also being introduced in the Companies Act, 2013 (CA 2013). However, one aspect of this debate that has hitherto gained lesser traction is the ability of a public company to refuse registration of share transfers pursuant to section 58(4) of the CA 2013.

Section 58(2) of CA 2013 states that the securities of any member in a public company are freely transferable, while under section 58(4) of CA 2013, it is open to the public company to refuse registration of the transfer of securities for a ‘sufficient cause’. To that extent, section 58(4) of CA 2013 can be read as a limited restriction on the free transfer permitted under section 58(2) of CA 2013. However, the statute does not provide any guidance on what would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ and leaves it open to the company itself to ascertain the same. Continue Reading Share Transfers: Can the Company Say No?

By utilising its powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has delivered an unprecedented decision on August 09, 2018 in Chitra Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors[1]., and other connected matters (the Jaypee / homebuyers Case)[2]. In this era of evolving jurisprudence on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Supreme Court, by this landmark decision, has settled some highly debated issues with respect to its implementation and has provided much required certainty. This has been achieved by the Supreme Court paving the way to reset the clock by re-commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Continue Reading Resetting the Clock: Supreme Court Sends Jaypee Infratech Limited Back to NCLT for CIRP

On June 6, 2018, the Government once again amended certain provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), by promulgating an ordinance[1] (the 2018 Ordinance) which introduces sweeping changes to the both substantive as well as procedural aspects relating to the insolvency process. Some of the key changes are analysed below.

Homebuyers – A New Class of ‘Financial Creditors’

The 2018 Ordinance has amended the definition of ‘financial debt’ to include amounts raised from ‘allottees’ in respect of a real estate project (as defined under the Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA)). Accordingly, homebuyers will now be entitled to a seat on the ‘committee of creditors’ (CoC) of the corporate debtor. However, given the large number of homebuyers for a project, they will be treated as a class of creditors and be represented in the CoC by an ‘authorised representative’ to be appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Continue Reading 2018 IBC Ordinance: Impact of Changes

In its judgment pronounced on May 9, 2018, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad, in the case of ICICI Bank Limited v. Mr. Anuj Jain (Resolution Professional of Jaypee Infratech Limited), addressed the issue of the rights of third-party security holders of a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The judgment negated ICICI Bank Limited’s contention that it should be considered a financial creditor of Jaypee Infratech Limited, the corporate debtor. ICICI Bank’s claim was based on the corporate debtor having created mortgages on its property to secure loans provided to Jaiprakash Associates Limited, the holding company of the corporate debtor. The NCLT concluded that there was no financial debt owed to ICICI Bank by the corporate debtor, and so it could not be considered a financial creditor of the corporate debtor.

We consider here the correctness of the judgment and whether the NCLT has considered all the implications of its finding.

Continue Reading Is a Third-Party Security Holder a Financial Creditor Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), since its enactment, has been a subject of great discussion and debate, both in the Industry as well as in the legal fraternity. This strong divide continues between those who consider it a necessary step (based on the abysmal rates of recovery of defaulted loans) and those who classify it as a ‘draconian legislation’. Given the division of views, it was expected that the IBC would be subject to legal and constitutional challenges.

This piece relates to one such challenge, and the first such judgement, on the constitutionality of provisions of the IBC.

The Supreme Court says: Do not examine constitutional validity

Interestingly, the Supreme Court, apprehending the largescale consequences of such challenges, advised the High Court of Gujarat in its order dated January 25, 2018 passed in Shivam Water Treaters Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors[1], not to enter into the debate around the constitutional validity of the IBC. The Supreme Court observed that, “The High Court is requested not to enter into the debate pertaining to the validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or the constitutional validity of the National Company Law Tribunal.

Challenge of Constitutional Validity before the High Court at Calcutta

In November 2017, a challenge to constitutionality of provisions of the IBC was initiated before the High Court at Calcutta[2]. After hearing arguments, the High Court reserved its judgement on the issues on December 15, 2017, which was well before the order of the Supreme Court in the Shivam Water Treaters case. The challenge arose consequent to an order of the Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal, which admitted an insolvency resolution petition filed by a financial creditor (Sberbank of Russia) against a corporate debtor (Varrsana Ispat Limited).

Continue Reading Constitutionality of the IBC Upheld

In the case of Wiki Kids Limited[1], the NCLAT upheld the order of the NCLT rejecting a scheme of amalgamation, as it resulted in undue advantage to the promoters of the amalgamating company.

Facts

Background

In the instant case, a non-listed company Wiki Kids Limited (Transferor Company), wished to amalgamate with Avantel Limited, a listed company (Transferee Company). For the aforesaid purpose, these entities (collectively referred to as Appellants) had proposed a scheme of amalgamation (Scheme) and approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking directions with respect to the meetings of the shareholders, and secured and unsecured creditors in the Scheme.

Pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the Scheme was approved by the shareholders of the Transferee Company. In the meantime, in view of a notification of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated December 7, 2016, the case was transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Appellants, accordingly, filed a second motion before the Hyderabad Bench of the NCLT. The NCLT, on perusal of various documents including the share exchange ratio and the valuation report, rejected the Scheme on the ground that it was beneficial to the common promoters of the Appellants and no public interest was being served.

Continue Reading NCLT Can Reject a Scheme of Arrangement if it is not in Public Interest

On August 31st 2017, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited* delivered its first extensive ruling on the operation and functioning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Insolvency Code). The Court said that it is pronouncing its detailed judgment in the very first application under the Insolvency Code, so that all Courts and Tribunals may take notice of a paradigm shift in the law.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of Innoventive Industries Limited and confirmed the decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which in turn had affirmed the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai (NCLT) admitting the insolvency petition filed by ICICI Bank Limited against Innoventive Industries Limited. Continue Reading Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited: Paradigm Shift in Insolvency Law in India

In a landmark judgment recently delivered by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the case of Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited, the NCLAT has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is bound to issue only a limited notice to the corporate debtor before admitting a case under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Insolvency Code).

Whilst dismissing the appeal filed by Innoventive Industries Limited against an order passed by NCLT, Mumbai admitting the insolvency petition filed by ICICI Bank Limited, the NCLAT has clarified that adherence to principles of natural justice would not mean that in every situation the NCLT is required to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the corporate debtor before passing its order.

Continue Reading NCLAT Defines the Scope and Extent of the Corporate Debtor’s Right to Contest Admission of Insolvency Applications Filed by Financial Creditors

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Insolvency Code) has been one of the biggest Indian reform of recent times, which has moved the regime away from one that was highly uncertain for foreign investors. Among other important changes, the Insolvency Code contemplates change in control of the company during the insolvency resolution process to an insolvency professional (IP). The Insolvency Code comes in an environment where many Indian companies have gone global and have made acquisitions outside India.

India has not adopted the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (UNCITRAL Model Law). It is notable that only a few countries that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law have specified a ‘reciprocity’ requirement for recognition of insolvency proceedings. Therefore, even if India has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law, Indian insolvency proceedings may be recognised in a jurisdiction that does not have a reciprocity requirement (this remains untested for Indian insolvency judgements). Also, Section 234 of the Insolvency Code provides for the Indian Government to enter into bilateral treaties with other countries for application of the Insolvency Code to assets or property outside India of the insolvent entities. However, to date, no such bilateral treaty has been signed.

Continue Reading Indian Insolvency Regime without Cross-border Recognition – A Task Half Done?