One of the leading Bank granted credit facility to Invent Ltd. and on default in making repayment by the Company, the Bank filed an application for initiation Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Before the Na
CS Professional · Insolvency - Law and Practice · PYQS · December 2020
One of the leading Bank granted credit facility to Invent Ltd. and on default in making repayment by the Company, the Bank filed an application for initiation Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Company argued that as its liabilities stood suspended pursuant to a relief order passed by Government of Maharashtra under Maharashtra Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions Act), 1958 (MRU Act) no amounts were due and payable by it to Bank and hence, the application for CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) could not be admitted. Under the MRU Act, the State Government may take over management of undertaking and impose moratorium in the same manner as contained in IBC, 2016. Examine in the light of decided case, whether the CIRP application filed by the Bank under IBC, 2016 will prevail?
Answer & Explanation:
In terms of Section 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 where any corporate debtor commits a default a financial creditor, an operational creditor or the corporate debtor itself may initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of such corporate debtor. The given case have the similar facts as was in the case of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 8337-8338 of 2017 , decided by the Supreme Court of India. The case involved contradictory provisions in the Code and a state law of Maharashtra state, Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. This brought the two legislation on a collision course, for the simple reason that enforcement of one will hinder the enforcement of the other. The Code instead provides for taking over of an undertaking's business by an 'Insolvency Professional' through a committee of creditors. The appeal to the Supreme Court, hence involved two major questions. One was, whether the petitioner can seek relief under the Maharashtra Act at the cost of the Code. The second was, whether both the laws are repugnant to each other. The Supreme Court held that even if the two legislations are framed on different entries of the concurrent list, the Central law will always prevail if it comes in conflict with the State law. The State law, therefore was held inoperable to the extent that it was in contradiction to the Code. In this case the Supreme Court has opined that the provisions of the Code will have supremacy over every other law, whenever and wherever any conflict arises. Hence the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code shall have an overriding effect over MRU Act. The NCLT was right in admitting the bank's application for CIRP, declared moratorium and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
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...