9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (7) TMI 6 - AT - IBCNon-constitution of Committee of Creditors (CoC) - jurisdiction of financial creditor to oppose application filed under Section 12A of the IBC which was filed prior to constitution of the CoC - HELD THAT - Section 12A has been inserted in IBC by Act 26/2018. Hon ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Ltd. Anr. 2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT has occasion to consider the challenge to the provisions of Section 12A of the Code. Hon ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has noticed the Report of Insolvency Law Committee (ILC) Report of March 2018 which lead to insertion of Section 12A - Hon ble Supreme Court has also noticed Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations 2016 and after noticing the scheme observed that at any stage where CoC is not yet constituted party can approach the NCLT directly which may allow or disallow application for withdrawal or settlement. From the facts it is clear that IRP issued publication on 19.06.2022 and after issuance of the publication settlement was made with the SIDBI and payments of dues of Rs. 1, 58, 70, 199/- was made to the SIDBI on 23.06.2022 and thereafter an application under Section 12A was filed on 25.06.2022 by IRP. HDFC Bank has also filed its claim on 30.06.2022 i.e. which was the last date for submitting the claim for creditors as per publication dated 19.06.2022 - The present is the case where 12A application was filed before the constitution of the CoC and the procedure for filing such application is contemplated under Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations 2016. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly allowed the application filed by the HDFC Bank opposing the 12A application for withdrawal. The claim was filed by HDFC within the time given by the IRP is a relevant factor and any objection raised by the HDFC Bank to the 12A application cannot be said to be meritless. The Adjudicating Authority has taken into consideration all relevant factors including the quantum of the claim admitted and the quantum of the claim settled with the SIDBI. Adjudicating Authority is not mere post office who has to allow the withdrawal filed under 12A which is filed before the constitution of the CoC which is the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in GLAS Trust Company LLC 2024 (10) TMI 1185 - SUPREME COURT (LB) . It is hastened to add that mere fact that a stakeholder of the corporate debtor before constitution of the CoC has filed an objection itself may not be a reason to reject 12A application. Adjudicating Authority has to advert to the relevant factors which may include the nature and quantum of claim of the stakeholders. In a case where Adjudicating Authority finds that substantial and majority of claim has already settled with the corporate debtor that may be a factor which may weigh to the Adjudicating Authority in allowing 12A application. No straight jacket formula can be laid down for adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority of a 12A application and the objections filed therein. Facts of each application under 12A and objection therein need to be looked into before taking a decision as to whether the application under 12A be allowed or rejected. The Adjudicating Authority has also rightly taken into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case - no error is committed by the Adjudicating Authority in passing order - application disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
- Whether an application under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) prior to constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), can be opposed by another financial creditor who has filed its claim within the prescribed timeline? - Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the IRP's application under Section 12A for withdrawal of the CIRP and allowing the intervention application of the financial creditor opposing such withdrawal? - The extent of the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction and discretion in considering objections to withdrawal applications filed under Section 12A before constitution of the CoC. - The applicability and interpretation of Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) regarding procedure for withdrawal applications before constitution of the CoC. - The effect of settled claims with one financial creditor on the rights and claims of other creditors in the CIRP process and the principle of collective resolution under the IBC. - The legal principles governing the nature of CIRP proceedings as "in rem" proceedings and the consequent rights of stakeholders after admission of the insolvency petition. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Jurisdiction of other financial creditors to oppose Section 12A withdrawal application filed before constitution of CoC The legal framework includes Section 12A of the IBC, inserted by Act 26/2018, allowing withdrawal of insolvency applications post admission, subject to approval of 90% voting share of the CoC once constituted. Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations provides the procedure for withdrawal applications before CoC constitution, requiring submission of the application to the IRP and thereafter to the Adjudicating Authority for approval after considering relevant factors. The Court examined precedents, notably the Supreme Court's judgment in Swiss Ribbons Ltd. & Anr., which emphasized that once CIRP is admitted, proceedings become collective ("in rem"), involving all creditors, and withdrawal requires consultation with the CoC or, if not constituted, adjudication by the NCLT after hearing all concerned parties. The Court also relied heavily on the Supreme Court's recent rulings in Abhishek Singh and GLAS Trust Company LLC, which clarified that withdrawal applications filed before CoC constitution are not to be treated as a mere formality or technicality. Instead, the Adjudicating Authority must conduct an adjudicatory exercise, hearing all stakeholders and considering all relevant facts. The Court noted that HDFC Bank, a financial creditor, filed its claim within the timeline prescribed in the IRP's publication and thus had locus standi to oppose the withdrawal application filed by the IRP based on settlement with another creditor (SIDBI). The Court rejected the appellant's submission that other creditors have no jurisdiction to object before constitution of the CoC, holding that the collective nature of CIRP proceedings post admission entails that all creditors become stakeholders with rights to be heard. The Court observed that the Adjudicating Authority rightly exercised its jurisdiction by allowing the intervention application of HDFC Bank and rejecting the IRP's withdrawal application, considering the interests of all creditors and the collective resolution framework mandated by the IBC. Issue 2: Interpretation and application of Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations Regulation 30A prescribes the procedure for withdrawal applications under Section 12A, including submission to the IRP in Form FA, bank guarantee for estimated costs, consideration by the CoC if constituted, and approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The Court highlighted that Regulation 30A was introduced to fill the lacuna regarding withdrawal post admission but prior to CoC constitution. The Court emphasized that Regulation 30A does not reduce the Adjudicating Authority's role to a mere "post office" function. Instead, the Adjudicating Authority must hear all parties and consider all relevant factors, including claims of other creditors. The Court referred to Paragraph 66(b) of the GLAS Trust Company judgment, which held that the Adjudicating Authority must conduct an adjudicatory exercise and not merely approve withdrawal mechanically. The Court found that the Adjudicating Authority properly applied Regulation 30A by considering the competing claims and objections, the quantum of claims admitted, and the settlement amount, before rejecting the withdrawal application. Issue 3: Effect of settlement with one creditor on other creditors' rights and the collective nature of CIRP The Court reiterated the principle that CIRP proceedings are collective in nature, involving all creditors once admitted, as established in Swiss Ribbons and GLAS Trust Company. A settlement with one creditor alone does not extinguish or affect the claims of other creditors. Preferential payment to one creditor to the exclusion of others is inconsistent with the IBC's scheme. The Court noted that the total admitted claims amounted to Rs. 4,58,82,649/-, including Rs. 4,30,74,985/- from HDFC Bank, whereas the settlement amount with SIDBI was Rs. 1,58,70,199/-. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that a unilateral settlement with SIDBI could not override the legitimate interests of other creditors, particularly HDFC Bank, whose claims were filed within the stipulated period. The Court underscored that disregarding other creditors' interests would violate the collective resolution framework and the rights of stakeholders in the insolvency process. Issue 4: Nature of CIRP proceedings as "in rem" and implications for withdrawal applications The Court analyzed the transformation of insolvency proceedings from "in personam" (between applicant creditor and corporate debtor) to "in rem" (involving all creditors) upon admission under Sections 7 to 9 of the IBC, as explained in GLAS Trust Company and Swiss Ribbons. This change in character entails that the management of the corporate debtor vests in the IRP/RP, and all creditors become necessary stakeholders. Thus, withdrawal applications affect the collective interests of all creditors and cannot be decided unilaterally or without hearing all concerned parties. The Court emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority must consider the collective nature of proceedings and the interests of all creditors before allowing withdrawal, even if the application is filed before constitution of the CoC. Issue 5: Discretion and factors for Adjudicating Authority in deciding Section 12A withdrawal applications The Court acknowledged that the mere fact of an objection by a stakeholder does not automatically justify rejection of a withdrawal application. The Adjudicating Authority must consider relevant factors, including nature and quantum of claims, timing of settlement, and overall interests of creditors. No rigid or "straight jacket" formula applies; each application must be decided on its facts. The Court found that the Adjudicating Authority properly balanced these factors in the present case, considering the substantial claims of HDFC Bank and the limited settlement amount with SIDBI, and accordingly rejected the IRP's withdrawal application. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Once the petition is admitted, the proceedings are no longer the preserve of the applicant creditor and the debtor. They now become in rem and all creditors of the corporate debtor become stakeholders in the process." "Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations does not reduce the Adjudicating Authority's role to a mere post office that merely puts a stamp on the withdrawal application submitted by the parties through the IRP. The NCLT must decide on the application after hearing all the parties concerned and considering all relevant factors on the facts of each case." "A unilateral settlement between one financial creditor and the corporate debtor cannot override the legitimate interests of other creditors who have filed their claims within the prescribed timelines. Such an approach would contradict the collective resolution framework mandated by the Code and undermine the interests of other stakeholders in the insolvency process." "The Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction and discretion to consider objections by other creditors to a Section 12A withdrawal application filed before constitution of the CoC and must undertake an adjudicatory exercise, hearing all parties and considering all relevant factors." "No straight jacket formula can be laid down for adjudication of Section 12A applications and objections thereto; facts of each case must be considered to decide whether the application should be allowed or rejected." The Adjudicating Authority was justified in allowing the intervention application of HDFC Bank and rejecting the IRP's application for withdrawal under Section 12A. The appeals challenging the Adjudicating Authority's orders on I.A. No. 200/2022 and I.A. No. 182/2022 were correctly decided and no interference was warranted.
|
