JCP Industries Ltd (JIL) was incorporated in the year 2011 with an authorized share capital of ₹ 2,000 crore having its registered office located in Mumbai with the main objects to carry out the business (a) manufacturin
CS Professional · Insolvency - Law and Practice · PYQS · December 2022
JCP Industries Ltd (JIL) was incorporated in the year 2011 with an authorized share capital of ₹ 2,000 crore having its registered office located in Mumbai with the main objects to carry out the business (a) manufacturing of heavy duty earth moving machinery and their spare parts (b) purchase, sale, construction of multi-story commercial and residential apartments under own name or as under Joint Development Agreements (c) Mining of minerals and thereafter refining and processing them for sale; and (d) doing the business in the hospitality sector by running and maintaining Hotels, Resorts and Budget Hotels. The paid-up share capital of the company as on date is ₹ 1,750 crore. During the course of business, the company has approached various banks, state finance corporations and NBFCs for availing financial assistance in the nature of term loans and other facilities. However, based on the business plans and security offered, the finance proposal was approved by National Bank of India (the Bank) in the form of both fund based and non-fund based limits. The company during the course of its business operations was also availing credit for 90 days to 120 days from its creditors in connection with the purchase of raw material being used in the business of manufacturing heavy duty earth moving machineries, real estate, mining and hospitality sectors. The progress of the company since its incorporation till 31 st March, 2019 was exceptional. However, because of certain transactions carried out by the directors with their relatives and other parties between 1 st July, 2020 to 30 th June, 2021 which were in the nature purchase of raw-material for different business segments of the company including the purchase of immovable properties as well as transferring and sale of goods and assets of the company to such related and other parties by giving them preference over the other buyers ultimately resulted into mismatch in the cash flows and consequently resulted into losses to the company. With an intention to grow organically, the company also incorporated a wholly owned subsidiary in the year 2017 under the name of JCP Buildcon Ltd (JAL) which was mainly engaged in the real estate business involving construction of apartments and flats in multi-story buildings under the Joint Development Agreements being entered into with the various parties including various State Governments under Housing Schemes. JAL entered into a tripartite Joint Development Agreement with Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) for construction of apartments and flats in multi-story buildings after development of land belonging to JDA. In an attempt to extend support to JIL, JAL had also mortgaged its assets in favour of banks in the month of August, 2018 when additional financial assistance was provided to JIL. The financial condition of JIL started deteriorating after July, 2019 because of reduction in the business activities as well as default being committed in honoring the debt obligations towards banks, payment to trade creditors and delays in construction of apartments to be handed over to the buyers who had entered into agreements with the company and have paid almost 95% of the cost of the apartment. The banks, trade creditors and buyers of the flats were constantly making follow up with the management but no reply was given to them by the management of JIL as well as JAL. National Bank of India during their internal review meeting informed their legal team that the promoter/directors may have siphoned off the money which was supposed to have been used for business purposes; since it appears to them that the amounts have been advanced to related parties and diverted towards a few suspicious transactions. The bank despite the continuous follow up with the management and the Board of directors could not get any suitable response relating to the repayment plan to honor the debt obligations. Considering the situation and based on the recommendation of their legal department, the bank decided to take action against the company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) and thus filed an application on 16 th February, 2022 before the Adjudicating Authority (AA) for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). In the application, the Bank had proposed name of Robin to act as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Simultaneously, other lenders of JAL also submitted an application before the AA to initiate CIRP against JAL for default in repayment of their dues. After hearing the parties, the AA admitted the applications in the case of JIL and JAL on 25 th April, 2022 and also confirmed the appointment of Robin as IRP in both the companies. In the case of JIL, Robin constituted a Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 15 th May, 2022 and called first meeting of the CoC on 20 th May, 2022. The constitution of CoC by Robin was challenged by the operational creditors as well as home buyers since their name was not included in the list of the CoC. Further, the members of the suspended Board of directors of JIL also challenged the actions of Robin who did not allow their participation in the first meeting of the CoC. During the first meeting of the CoC in the case of JIL, Robin was confirmed to act as Resolution Professional (RP) by the CoC and was asked to invite the Expression of Interest (EoI) from the Resolution Applicants (RA) for submitting Resolution Plan. Besides the above, JDA has also issued notice to JAL for taking over possession of the land given for the purpose of construction. Considering the above facts answer the following questions: JIL had also taken loan on the strength of property mortgaged by JAL. Examine and state whether such transaction would be treated as a preferential transaction and whether the creditors of JIL will be treated as "Financial Creditors" of JAL since JAL had provided the securities for funding given to JIL.
Answer & Explanation:
JIL had taken the financial assistance from National Bank of India and in facts it is being stated that the assets of JAL were mortgaged for such financial assistance extended by the banks to JIL. The issue is related with the third party mortgage and whether such transaction of mortgage is a preferential transaction as per section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and to decide whether the creditor appearing in the books of JIL will be treated as financial creditor of JAL. The issue and the facts given in the case are identical as were before the Apex Court in the case of Anuj Jain IRP v/s Axis Bank Ltd and the Apex Court vide its order dated 26 th February, 2020 after analyzing the provisions contained in section 43 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code held that the intention of the party is not important to determine whether the transaction is preferential and for clarity in the categorization of a transaction as preferential, the Apex Court laid down the following steps: Determine "Relevant Time" concerning section 43 - which is two years in case of related party and one year in case of unrelated parties (both to be calculated from insolvency commencement date). The next step would be to determine whether there has been a transfer of property or transfer of an interest of the corporate debtor. Establishment of the fact whether the beneficiary is a creditor or guarantor or surety in the capacity of the corporate debtor. Analyze whether the transaction is made on account of financial debt or an operational debt and whether the said transfer puts the transferee in a beneficial position than it would have been in the event of distribution of assets as per section 53 of the Code. The Apex Court based on the above analysis held that the transaction between the Corporate Debtor and its holding as 'preferential' under the Code. In the present case, JAL had mortgaged its assets as security for loans taken by JIL and there was no "director nexus" between JAL and the lenders of JIL. The basic requirement of a creditor to become a financial creditor for the purpose of the Code is the transaction vis-à-vis the corporate debtor. The Apex court thus held that in the given facts, the corporate debtor has given its property in mortgage to secure the debt of a third party (its holding company), the same may fall within the definition of 'debt' as per section 3(10) of the Code but it cannot partake the character of 'financial debt' within the meaning of section 5(8) of the Code. Hence, considering the above judgement, the financial creditor of JIL will not be treated as the financial creditor of JAL as there was no direct financial assistance given to JAL which had time value of money.
Topics: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
Related Questions in this Topic
- Mr. V. Ramaswamy is former Director of Corporate Debtor namely M/s Narmada Project Limited an application field with Res...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. K Sridhar and Mr. K. Murali are the Directors of M/s S & M Engineering Enterprises Limited (SMEEL). Unfortunately, b...