13 February 2020

Contesting Section 9 application.

In this article, provision of the Code, rules & regulations on admission of application for insolvency of a Corporate Debtor under section 9 of the Code will be discussed from the perspective of Board of Directors of the CD. This is a crucial point where the Board of Directors of CD loses all powers.

Provisions of the Code;
# Section 8. Insolvency resolution by operational creditor. -
(1) An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a default, deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debtor copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The corporate debtor shall, within a period of ten days of the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1) bring to the notice of the operational creditor 
- (a) existence of a dispute, if any, or record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute;
- (b) the payment  of unpaid operational debt-
- (i) by sending an attested copy of the record of electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate debtor; or
- (ii) by sending an attested copy of record that the operational creditor has encashed a cheque issued by the corporate debtor.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, a “demand notice” means a notice served by an operational creditor to the corporate debtor demanding payment of the operational debt in respect of which the default has occurred.

# Section 9. Application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor. –
(1) After the expiry of the period of ten days from the date of delivery of the notice or invoice demanding payment under sub-section (1) of section 8, if the operational creditor does not receive payment from the corporate debtor or notice of the dispute under sub-section (2) of section 8, the operational creditor may file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process.
(2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed.
(3) The operational creditor shall, along with the application furnish-
- (a) a copy of the invoice demanding payment or demand notice delivered by the operational creditor to the corporate debtor;
- (b) an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt;
- (c) a copy of the certificate from the financial institutions maintaining accounts of the operational creditor confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor, if available;
- (d) a copy of any record with information utility confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor, if available; and
- (e) any other proof confirming that there is no payment of any unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor or such other information, as may be prescribed.
(4) An operational creditor initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process under this section, may propose a resolution professional to act as an interim resolution professional.
(5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application under sub-section (2), by an order–
(i) admit the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor if, -
- (a) the application made under sub-section (2) is complete;
- (b) there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt;
- (c) the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor has been delivered by the operational creditor;
- (d) no notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility; and
- (e) there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed under sub-section (4), if any.
(ii) reject the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and
the corporate debtor, if -
- (a) the application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete;
- (b) there has been payment of the unpaid operational debt;
- (c) the creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor;
- (d) notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility; or
- (e) any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any proposed resolution professional:
Provided that Adjudicating Authority, shall before rejecting an application under sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of the date of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority.
(6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the application under sub-section (5) of this section.

# Section 238A. Limitation.
The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.]

# Rule 5. Demand notice by operational creditor.—
(1) An operational creditor shall deliver to the corporate debtor, the following documents, namely.-
- (a) a demand notice in Form 3; or
- (b) a copy of an invoice attached with a notice in Form 4.
(2) The demand notice or the copy of the invoice demanding payment referred to in sub-
section (2) of section 8 of the Code, may be delivered to the corporate debtor,
- (a) at the registered office by hand, registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due; or
- (b) by electronic mail service to a whole time director or designated partner or key managerial personnel, if any, of the corporate debtor.
(3) A copy of demand notice or invoice demanding payment served under this rule by an operational creditor shall also be filed with an information utility, if any.

# Rule 6. Application by operational creditor.—
(1) An operational creditor, shall make an application for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor under section 9 of the Code in Form 5, accompanied with documents and records required therein and as specified in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
(2) The applicant under sub-rule (1) shall dispatch forthwith, a copy of the application filed with the Adjudicating Authority, by registered post or speed post to the registered office of the corporate debtor.

Broadly speaking, application under section 9 can be contested on the following grounds;
1. Incomplete application. However the applicant (OC) is granted seven days time to complete the application. 
2. Creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor.
3. Ineligibility of the IRP, proposed by the applicant (OC), if any.
- Disciplinary proceeding is pending against any proposed resolution professional.
- Proposed resolution professional do not hold AFA as per regulations.
- Conflict of interest. Proposed resolution professional is related party of the applicant (OC)
or had been the employee / auditor / advocate of the applicant (OC) in the past..
- Ineligible in terms section 203(3) of “The Companies Act, 2013.”
4. Application is beyond the limitation period.
5. Claim is disputed.

Application is beyond the limitation period.
Following is an important judgement of Hon’ble SCI, on this aspect.
Hon’ble SCI (11.10.2018) in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd Vs Parag Gupta and Associates ( Civil Appeal no. 23988 of 2017) held that; a). Limitation Act is applicable from the inception of the Code. b). Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted for applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code. c). “The right to sue”, therefore, accrues when a default occurs.
# 27. It is thus clear that since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. “The right to sue”, therefore, accrues when a default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, save and except in those cases where, in the facts of the case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be applied to condone the delay in filing such application.

Claim of the Operational Creditor is disputed & dispute was raised prior to the receipt of Demand Notice / Invoice under section 8.
Following judgements of Hon’ble SCI defines the case law, on this aspect.

i). SCI (31.8.2017) in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8337 - 8338 of 2017) held as under;
“27. The scheme of the Code is to ensure that when a default takes place, in the sense that a debt becomes due and is not paid, the insolvency resolution process begins. Default is defined in Section 3(12) in very wide terms as meaning non-payment of a debt once it becomes due and payable, which includes non-payment of even part thereof or an instalment amount. For the meaning of “debt”, we have to go to Section 3(11), which in turn tells us that a debt means a liability of obligation in respect of a “claim” and for the meaning of “claim”, we have to go back to Section 3(6) which defines “claim” to mean a right to payment even if it is disputed. The Code gets triggered the moment default is of rupees one lakh or more (Section 4). The corporate insolvency resolution process may be triggered by the corporate debtor itself or a financial creditor or operational creditor. A distinction is made by the Code between debts owed to financial creditors and operational creditors. A financial creditor has been defined under Section 5(7) as a person to whom a financial debt is owed and a financial debt is defined in Section 5(8) to mean a debt which is disbursed against consideration for the time value of money. As opposed to this, an operational creditor means a person to whom an operational debt is owed
and an operational debt under Section 5(21) means a claim in respect of provision of goods or services.
“29. The scheme of Section 7 stands in contrast with the scheme under Section 8 where an
operational creditor is, on the occurrence of a default, to first deliver a demand notice of the
unpaid debt to the operational debtor in the manner provided in Section 8(1) of the Code. Under
Section 8(2), the corporate debtor can, within a period of 10 days of receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1), bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration  proceedings, which is pre existing – i.e. before such notice or invoice was received by the corporate debtor. The moment there is existence of such a dispute, the operational creditor gets out of the clutches of the Code.

ii). SCI (21.09.2017)in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited  Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (Civil Appeal 9405 of 2017) held that;
# 25. Therefore, the adjudicating authority, when examining an application under Section 9 of the Act will have to determine:
- (i) Whether there is an “operational debt” as defined exceeding Rs.1 lakh? (See Section 4 of the Act)
- (ii) Whether the documentary evidence furnished with the application shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and has not yet been paid? And
- (iii) Whether there is existence of a dispute between the parties or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the receipt of the demand notice of the unpaid operational debt in relation to such dispute?
If any one of the aforesaid conditions is lacking, the application would have to be rejected.
Apart from the above, the adjudicating authority must follow the mandate of Section 9, as outlined above, and in particular the mandate of Section 9(5) of the Act, and admit or reject the application, as the case may be, depending upon the factors mentioned in Section 9(5) of the Act.
# 29 ……… We have also seen that one of the objects of the Code qua operational debts is to ensure that the amount of such debts, which is usually smaller than that of financial debts, does not enable operational creditors to put the corporate debtor into the insolvency resolution process prematurely or initiate the process for extraneous considerations. It is for this reason that it is enough that a dispute exists between the Parties.
# 40. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the “existence” of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.
# 45. Going by the aforesaid test of “existence of a dispute”, it is clear that without going into the merits of the dispute, the appellant has raised a plausible contention requiring further investigation which is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of facts unsupported by evidence. The defense is not spurious, mere bluster, plainly frivolous or vexatious. A dispute does truly exist in fact between the parties, which may or may not ultimately succeed, and the Appellate Tribunal was wholly incorrect in characterizing the defense as vague, got-up and motivated to evade liability.

iii). SCI (14.08.2018) in K. Kishan Vs. M/S Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd.(Civil Appeal No. 21824 of 2017)held as under;
# 18. We repeat with emphasis that under our Code, insofar as an operational debt is concerned, all that has to be seen is whether the said debt can be said to be disputed, and we have no doubt in stating that the filing of a Section 34 petition against an Arbitral Award shows that a pre-existing dispute which culminates at the first stage of the proceedings in an Award, continues even after the Award, at least till the final adjudicatory process under Sections 34 & 37 has taken place.
# 19. We may hasten to add that there may be cases where a Section 34 petition challenging an Arbitral Award may clearly and unequivocally be barred by limitation, in that it can be demonstrated to the Court that the period of 90 days plus the discretionary period of 30 days has clearly expired, after which either no petition under Section 34 has been filed or a belated petition under Section 34 has been filed. It is only in such clear cases that the insolvency process may then be put into operation.
# 20. We may hasten to add that there may also be other cases where a Section 34 petition may have been instituted in the wrong court, as a result of which the petitioner may claim the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to get over the bar of limitation laid down in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. In such cases also, it is obvious that the insolvency process cannot be put into operation without an adjudication on the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
# 23. We are also of the view that the Appellate Tribunal, when it relied upon Form V Part 5 of the 2016 Rules to state that the operational debt would, therefore, be said to have been proved, missed the vital sub-clause (iii) in para 34 of Mobilox Innovations (supra). Even if it be clear that there be a record of an operational debt, it is important that the said debt be not disputed. If disputed within the parameters laid down in Mobilox Innovations (supra), an insolvency petition cannot be proceeded with further.

Application under Sec. 34 of ACA, 1996 is evidence of pending dispute.
High Court of Calcutta (10.01.2020) in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (A.P. No.550 of 2008) held that Once the Award is challenged in arbitration, the debt became disputed and subject to a decision in the Sec. 34 of ACA, 1996 proceedings.

#10 …………………. It would be evident from the dates since above that the impugned Award of 7th July, 2008 is a culmination of a dispute between the parties which existed before the initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings against the petitioner. It is also true that once the Award was challenged by the petitioner (Award Debtor) in 2008, the debt became disputed and subject to a decision in the Section 34 proceedings). This court is not inclined to agree with the contentions of the petitioner that the challenge to the Award cannot be considered by reason of the proceedings under the IBC. This is by reason of the fact that the respondent award-holder could not have filed a claim before the NCLT/IRP since the Section 34 proceedings had not been decided in favour of the said respondent in 2017 and hence there was no final or adjudicated claim as on that date.

References;-   
1. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
2. The Companies Act, 2013
3. eBook  "Claims of Creditors" by Arvind Mangla, a publication of Amazon Kindle Store..

Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this blog is to create awareness on the subject and must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must do his own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this blog.

11 February 2020

Issues in Enforcement of Security Interest (U/s. 52 of the Code), Pari-passu charge & sharing of proceeds.

Section 52 of the Code provides for enforcement of security interest by a secured creditor during liquidation process. In the present discussion, the following two issues are being examined.


1. Realization of the security interest by the secured creditor - pari-passu charge holders
Following are the provisions of different Statutes & regulations


# Section 52. Secured creditor in liquidation proceedings. -
(1) A secured creditor in the liquidation proceedings may-
- (a) relinquish its security interest to the liquidation estate and receive proceeds from the sale of assets by the liquidator in the manner specified in section 53; or
- (b) realise its security interest in the manner specified in this section.
(2) Where the secured creditor realises security interest under clause (b) of sub-section (1), he shall inform the liquidator of such security interest and identify the asset subject to such security interest to be realised.


Proviso to Section 325(1) of The Companies Act, 2013, provides as under:-
Provided that the security of every secured creditor shall be deemed to be subject to a pari passu charge in favour of the workmen to the extent of the workmen‘s portion therein, and, where a secured creditor, instead of relinquishing his security and proving his debts, opts to realise his security,
- (i) the liquidator shall be entitled to represent the workmen and enforce such charge;
- (ii) any amount realised by the liquidator by way of enforcement of such charge shall be applied rate-ably for the discharge of workmen‘s dues; and…………


Section 100 of the “Transfer of Property Act, 1882” provides as under;-
# Section 100. Charges Where immovable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on the property and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge.


Author’s comment - As the workmen’s dues have pari passu charge with the secured creditors, now the question arises about the treatment of  dues of workmen, for a period exceeding twenty four months, will they be covered under 6th priority, as “any remaining debts and dues” under the waterfall [Section 53(1)] or ignored due to non-obstante clause as per Section 238 of the Code.


NCLT Ruling;- 
i)  NCLT Mumbai (10.05.2019) in Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. V/s. Reid and Taylor India Limited [M.A.No.1392/2019 in C.P. No. 382/IB/MB/MAH/2018] held as under:-
# “8. .........., only the first charge holder / the secured creditor with first pari-passu charge can stay outside the liquidation process by the Liquidator and realize his security interest in the manner provided under the above provisions of law…….”

Author’s comments
1. Under the above mentioned orders AA has excluded the other pari-passu charge holders to participate in realising their security interest in the liquidation process. In my view, AA could  have allowed the first pari-passu charge holder to realise the security interest & hold the amount realised in trust for all the pari-passu charge holders, to be distributed according to the terms of documents creating pari-passu charge & Proviso to Section 325(1) of The Companies Act, 2013.
2. If the orders of AA will tantamount to suo-moto relinquishing of security interest by the second & subsequent pari-passu charge holders and workmen holding charge in terms of Proviso to Section 325(1) of The Companies Act, 2013


2. Sharing of the proceed on realization of the security interest by the secured creditor
Let’s look at the provisions of different Statutes & regulations.


# Section 52(8) of the Code:-
(8) The amount of insolvency resolution process costs, due from secured creditors who realise their security interests in the manner provided in this section, shall be deducted from the proceeds of any realisation by such secured creditors, and they shall transfer such amounts to the liquidator to be included in the liquidation estate.


Proviso to Section 325(1) of The Companies Act, 2013, provides as under:-
Provided that the security of every secured creditor shall be deemed to be subject to a pari passu charge in favour of the workmen to the extent of the workmen‘s portion therein, and, where a secured creditor, instead of relinquishing his security and proving his debts, opts to realise his security,


Regulation 21A(2) of Liquidation Regulations under the Code.
(2) Where a secured creditor proceeds to realise its security interest, it shall pay -
(a) as much towards the amount payable under clause (a) and sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 53, as it would have shared in case it had relinquished the security interest, to the liquidator within ninety days from the liquidation commencement date;


# Section 53. Distribution of assets. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law enacted by the Parliament or any State Legislature for the time being in force, the proceeds from the sale of the liquidation assets shall be distributed in the following order of priority and within such period as may be specified, namely: -
(a) the insolvency resolution process costs and the liquidation costs paid in full;
(b) the following debts which shall rank equally between and among the following:
- (i) workmen’s dues for the period of twenty-four months preceding the liquidation commencement date; and
- (ii) debts owed to a secured creditor in the event such secured creditor has relinquished security in the manner set out in section 52;


Sub-regulation (2) of regulation 21A, has three components-
S.No.
Component
Supported by
1.
Insolvency Resolution Process Cost Section 53(1)(a)
Section 52(8) of the Code
2.
Liquidation Cost, Section 53(1)(a)
Not supported by any Statute
3.
Workmen’s Dues as per 
section 53(1)(b)(i)
Proviso to Section 325(1) of 
The Companies Act, 2013


Author’s comments - The questions here are:-
1. Whether the provisions of “Section-52(8) of the Code”, overrides the “Proviso to Section 325(1) of The Companies Act, 2013”, due to non-obstante clause under Section 238 of the Code or both the provisions are to run concurrently ?
2. Whether the Board through Subordinate Legislation (Regulations) can provide for something beyond the scope & provisions of Principal Legislation ( IBC,2016) ?
3, Whether the provisions of Section 238 are not applicable on the regulations framed by the Board ?.

NCLT Ruling
i). NCLT Mumbai (08.04.2019) in SBI Global Factors Ltd. V/s. Sanaa Syntex Private Limited (MA 1123/2018 in CP No. 172/IBC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2017) held as under:-
“# 5. On perusal of the prayers made in this application, three pertinent questions come up for consideration of this Bench:
i. Whether SBI, the Financial Creditor is legally entitled to stay out of liquidation?           
ii. Whether there is any bar on the Secured Creditor to sell the assets to erstwhile promoters/directors of the Corporate Debtor, if the secured creditor opts out of liquidation ……….… Or …....... Whether S. 29A is applicable to liquidation proceedings in a situation when the Secured creditor realises the security interest on its own?                                             
iii. Whether the Secured Creditor exercising his right U/s 52(1)(b) of the Code has to make payment of workmen’s dues out of the amount realised from the sale of such secured assets as the EPF / workmen’s dues, which do not form part of the liquidation estate?


# 17…..Although the applicant/Liquidator has placed reliance on the judgement dated 12.09.2018 in the matter of Precision Fasteners V. EPF, passed by NCLT Mumbai in MA 576&752 of 2018 in CP No.1339/2017, wherein it was held that “All sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund, shall not be a part of the liquidation estate and shall not be used for recovery in liquidation”. But this decision is in context of the rights of the employees and not in the context of the restriction imposed U/s 53(1)(b)(ii). This judgement is therefore, not applicable in the present context because of a common understanding that the EPF dues are not being treated as the assets to be covered in the liquidation estate, however, the same are the liability of the Corporate Debtor which has to be paid by the liquidator as per S. 53 of the Code, and not by the secured creditor out of the proceeds from the sale of secured assets if exercised their option U/s 52(1)(b) of the Code. Hence, this prayer of the applicant is rejected on above findings. Question (iii) is answered in negative.”

References;-   
1. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
2. The Companies Act, 2013
3. Transfer of Property Act, 1882
4. eBook  "Claims of Creditors" by Arvind Mangla, a publication of Amazon Kindle Store..

Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this blog is to create awareness on the subject and must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must do his own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this blog.

Featured post

Fraudulent Transactions in IBC - A case study.

Section 49 of the IBC deals with "transactions defrauding creditors". Such transactions are undervalued transactions which are ...