Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (4) TMI 1137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ajan, Advocate with Ms. Pooja Bahry (erstwhile RP). Ms. Mehak Nayak, Advocate Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Jha, Advocates for R-2-4. For the Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Gurcharan Singh Advocates. For the Respondents : Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Advocate with Ms. Pooja Bahry (erstwhile RP). Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Ms. Mehak Nayak, Advocates For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Jha, Advocates For the Respondent : Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Advocate with Ms. Pooja Bahry (erstwhile RP). Ms. Mehak Nayak, Advocate JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN , J. 1. These three Appeals have been filed against the same Order dated 02nd March, 2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench-V (hereinafter referred to as "The Adjudicating Authority") allowing I.A. No. 5768 of 2020 in Company Petition (IB) No. 814/ND/2019 filed by the Resolution Professional (RP in short) under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Hereinafter referred to as "The Code"). The Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order held the transactions by the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Appellants as preferential transactions and directed to refund the respectiv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aling Rs. 90,00,000/-. With regard to Appellant No. 3-Keshika Exports Pvt. Ltd., antecedent liability of the corporate debtor towards Appellant No. 3 was discharged on 31.08.2018 of amount of Rs. 2,49,338/-. 5. We may notice brief facts giving rise to these Appeals. (i) CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced by Order dated 27.08.2019. On 16.09.2019 and 27.09.2019 public announcement was made. In CoC meeting dated 30.10.2019, Pooja Bahry was appointed as Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. (ii) On 09.09.2020, Resolution Professional appointed a Transaction Auditor i.e. Pipara & Co. to conduct the audit of the Corporate Debtor for the period 01.04.2016 to 27.08.2019. Transaction Auditor submitted its final report to the Resolution Professional. Resolution Professional has published Form-G. Resolution Plan was approved on 21.09.2020 by the CoC and on 28.09.2020, an Application being I.A. No. 4588 of 2020 under Section 30(6) of the Code was filed by the RP seeking approval of the plan and on 28.01.2021, Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority. (iii) Transaction Auditor has submitted a report on 09.09.2020 containing findings regarding certain .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. The repayments by the Corporate Debtor was in ordinary course of business and were towards financial affairs of the corporate debtor which are clearly exempted from the preferential transactions within the meaning of Section 43 of the Code. It is further submitted that composite application filed by the RP under Section 43, 44, 45, 46, 66, 67 and 60(5) of the Code raising allegations against several party under different provisions of the Code was not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain, IRP for Jaypee Infratech Limited Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors.", (2020) 8 SCC 401. 8. Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Resolution Professional had no authority to pursue the avoidance application in view of the position of law as declared by Delhi High Court in its Judgement "M/s. Venus Recruiters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.", 2020 SCC OnLine DL 1479. In the present case, Resolution Plan does not authorize the Resolution Professional to pursue the Application. It is further submitted that alleged withdrawal of the payments are less than the money deposited by the Appellant in the account of the Corporate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rse of business. Learned Counsel for the RP relied upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain" (supra). In support of her submission, she submitted that present transactions do not fall in ordinary course of business. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly declared the transaction as preferential transactions. 10. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 11. The Adjudicating Authority having accepted the claim of Resolution Professional with respect to preferential transactions and having not accepted case of the RP with regard to other transactions, consideration in these Appeals are only with regard to preferential transactions within the meaning of Section 43 of the Code. 12. Section 43 of the Code deals with preferential transactions and relevant time. Section 43 of the Code is as follows: "43: Preferential transactions and relevant time.- (1) Where the liquidator or the resolution professional, as the case may be, is of the opinion that the corporate debtor has at a relevant time given a preference in such transactions and in such manner as laid down in sub-section (2) to any persons as referr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or (b) a preference is given to a person other than a related party during the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement date." 13. Section 44 deals with Order in case of preferential transactions. 14. The Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order has noted in detail the facts and transactions which have been questioned by the Resolution Professional in the avoidance application. In paragraph 8(vii) of the Order, repayment to related parties and repayment to non-related parties have been separately noticed by the Adjudicating Authority. It is relevant to notice the paragraph 8(vii) which is to be following effect: "vii. TAR highlighted that during the relevant period provided in Section 43(4) of the Code, the following repayment/transfer were made by the Corporate Debtor to its related parties from 27.08.2017 to 27.08.2019 and to non-related parties from 27.08.2018 to 27.08.2019 to discharge its antecedent liability : Date Name of the party Amount (INR) Purpose Repayment to Related Parties A. Arun Gupta 06.09.2017 Unsecured Loan - Arun Gupta A/c 20,00,000 Repayment of unsecured loan of directors         07.1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 018 GVR Electronics Private Limited 15,00,000 Repayment of unsecured loan   Total (E) 90,00,000   F. GVR Consulting Services Ltd. 04.09.2018 GVR Consulting Services Ltd. 10,00,000 Repayment of unsecured loan 11.09.2018 GVR Consulting Services Ltd. 25,00,000 Repayment of unsecured loan 24.09.2018 GVR Consulting Services Ltd. 25,00,000 Repayment of unsecured loan 25.09.2018 GVR Consulting Services Ltd. 15,00,000 Repayment of unsecured loan 12.10.2018 GVR Consulting Services Ltd. 25,00,000 Repayment of unsecured loan   Total (F) 1,00,00,000     Total (D+E+F) 3,56,29,987     Grand Total (A+B+C+D+E+F) 6,37,29,325   15. There is no dispute between the parties that repayment to related parties and repayment to the non-related parties were within the lookout period. 16. The avoidance transaction in Insolvency Proceedings has been dealt with in the legislative schemes under several enactments relating to subject. We may have a look over the legislative scheme with regard to avoidance transaction prior to enforcement of IBC to appreciate the changes in the legislative scheme wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... faith and for valuable consideration, if made within a period of one year before the presentation of a petition for winding up by the Tribunal or the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding up of the company, shall be void against the liquidator." 19. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also referred to Uncitral Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law where under Part II, F, Avoidance Proceedings have been dealt with. Paragraphs 151, 152 and 153 are as follows: "151. It is a generally accepted principle of insolvency law that collective action is more efficient in maximizing the assets available to creditors than a system that leaves creditors free to pursue their individual remedies and that it requires all like creditors to receive the same treatment. Provisions dealing with avoidance powers are designed to support these collective goals, ensuring that creditors receive a fair allocation of an insolvent debtor's assets consistent with established priorities and preserving the integrity of the insolvency estate. Avoidance provisions may also have a deterrent effect, discouraging creditors from pursuing individual remedies in the period leading up to insolvency if they know .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cept of the "ordinary course of business" in defining their avoidance criteria, so that an extraordinary payment, as noted above, may be subject to avoidance. The concept has wider relevance to an insolvency regime as it may also be used, for example, to draw a distinction between the exercise of powers regarding the use and disposition of assets during the insolvency proceedings in the "ordinary course of business" and in other circumstances, both in terms of who may exercise such powers and the protections that are required (see above, paras. 75 and 76). 165. States define the "ordinary course of business" with varying emphasis on different elements. However, in most jurisdictions a common purpose of the definition is to determine what constitutes routine conduct of business and allow a business to make routine payments and enter into routine contracts, without subjecting those transactions to possible avoidance in insolvency. Those routine payments might include the payment of rent, utilities such as electricity and telephone and possibly also payment for trade supplies." 21. On defences, Paragraph 169 lays down following: "Defences 169. Where an insolvency law provide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Supreme Court had occasion to elaborately consider the scope and ambit of preferential transaction in IBC in "Anuj Jain Vs. Axis Bank Limited & Ors" (supra). Before we come to the treatment of law by the Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain", a look into the legislative scheme from Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 till the IBC Code indicate that legislative requirements under the different enactments were not identical and ingredients for avoidance of a transaction under the different enactments has been separately dealt. The Companies Act, 1956 dealt with fraudulent transaction. In the IBC, preferential transaction and fraudulent transaction has been separately dealt, ingredients to prove are different for preferential transaction. There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction. When we look into the scheme of Section 43 of the Code, sub-section (2), a clear statutory provision is that a corporate debtor shall be deemed to have given a preference if conditions as mentioned in paragraph 'a' and 'b' are fulfilled. When a provision provides for deeming fiction, 'deeming fiction' come into play on fulfilment of the requirement even if in fact it may not be so. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on'ble Supreme Court has also in its Judgement noticed paragraph 177 to 179 of Uncitral Legislative Guide as has been noticed in foregoing paragraph of the Judgment. The distinctive feature of the Companies Act, 2013 and the IBC have been noted in paragraph 20.4 and following has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in paragraph 20.4: "20.4. Noteworthy distinctive features, in the scheme of the Companies Act, 2013 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as regards preferences in relation to the corporate personalities, are that while Section 328 of the Act of 2013 deals with fraudulent preference and Section 329 thereof deals with transfers not in good faith but, on the other hand, in the Code, separate provisions are made as regards the transactions intended at defrauding the creditors (Section 49 IBC) as also for fraudulent trading or wrongful trading (Section 66 IBC). The provisions contained in Section 43 of the Code, however, indicate the intention of legislature that when a transaction falls within the coordinates defined therein, the same shall be deemed to be a preference given at a relevant time and shall not be countenanced. Therefore, intent may not be of a defence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reditor or a surety or a guarantor for or on account of an antecedent financial debt or operational debt or other liabilities owed by the corporate debtor; and as per clause (b) thereof, such transfer ought to be of the effect of putting such creditor or surety or guarantor in beneficial position than it would have been in the event of distribution of assets under Section 53. 21.2. However, merely giving of the preference and putting the beneficiary in a better position is not enough. For a preference to become an offending one for the purpose of Section 43 of the Code, another essential and rather prime requirement is to be satisfied that such event, of giving preference, ought to have happened within and during the specified time, referred to as "relevant time". The relevant time is reckoned, as per sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Code, in two ways: (a) if the preference is given to a related party (other than an employee), the relevant time is a period of two years preceding the insolvency commencement date; and (b) if the preference is given to a person other than a related party, the relevant time is a period of one year preceding such commencement date. In other words .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r in a beneficial position than it would have been in the event of distribution of assets in accordance with Section 53; and (iii) preference is given, either during the period of two years preceding the insolvency commencement date when the beneficiary is a related party (other than an employee), or during the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement date when the beneficiary is an unrelated party." 28. Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the above case that if the requirement made in sub-section (2) of Section 43 are satisfied legal fiction comes into play. In paragraph 22.3, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the deeming provisions come into existence the transaction entered into between the corporate debtor would be regarded as preferential transaction with attendant consequences irrespective whether the transaction was in fact intended or even anticipated to be so. In paragraph 22.3, following has been laid down: "19.3. On a conspectus of the principles so enunciated, it is clear that although the word 'deemed' is employed for different purposes in different contexts but one of its principal purpose, in essence, is to deem what may or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5.4 that Corporate Debtor by giving preference by way of mortgage transaction for the benefit of related party falls within preferential transaction. In paragraph 25.4, following was held: "25.4. In the scenario taken into comprehension hereinabove, there is nothing to doubt that the corporate debtor JIL has given a preference by way of the mortgage transactions in question for the benefit of its related person JAL (who has been the creditor as also surety for JIL) for and on account of antecedent financial debts, operational debts and other liabilities owed to such related person. In the given fact situation, it is plain and clear that the transactions in question meet with all the requirements of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 43." 31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also occasion to consider the concept of ordinary course of business in paragraph 28, 28.1, 28.2 and 28.3. Observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 28.3 and 28.5 are relevant which are to the following effect: "28.3. Needless to reiterate that if the transfer is examined with reference to the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the transferee alone, it may conveniently get excl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tions would be taken out of the net, which would practically result in frustrating the provision itself. Thus while finding out whether a transaction is ordinary course of business, the object and purpose of Section 43 and the legislative scheme have to be kept in mind. In paragraph 28.5 in sub-section (3) of Section 43 the expression "or", appearing as disjunctive between the expressions "corporate debtor" and "transferee" ought to be read as "and". Relying on a judgement of the High Court of Australia in Downs Distributing Company following has been observed in paragraph 28.6.1: "28.6.1. Thus, the enquiry now boils down to the question as to whether the impugned transfers were made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the corporate debtor JIL. It remains trite that an activity could be regarded as 'business' if there is a course of dealings, which are either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive.43 As regards the meaning and essence of the expression 'ordinary course of business', reference made by the appellants to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Downs Distributing Co., could be usefully recounted as under: .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sent respondents but on the given set of facts, we have not an iota of doubt that the impugned transactions do not fall within the ordinary course of business of the corporate debtor JIL. As noticed, the corporate debtor has been promoted as a special purpose vehicle by JAL for construction and operation of Yamuna Expressway and for development of the parcels of land along with the expressway for residential, commercial and other use. It is difficult to even surmise that the business of JIL, of ensuring execution of the works assigned to its holding company and for execution of housing/building projects, in its ordinary course, had inflated itself to the extent of routinely mortgaging its assets and/or inventories to secure the debts of its holding company. It had also not been the ordinary course of financial affairs of JIL that it would create encumbrances over its properties to secure the debts of its holding company. In other words, we are clearly of the view that the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the corporate debtor JIL cannot be taken to be that of providing mortgages to secure the loans and facilities obtained by its holding company; and that too at th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lace as part of the undistinguished common flow of the business done. Undistinguished common flow of the business of the Corporate Debtor does not contemplate any such or particular situation where the Corporate Debtor's claim that its financial position became unstable due to market condition and had started arranging money from their relatives and other parties. Money arranged from relative and other parties by the Corporate Debtor thus cannot be held to be part of ordinary course of business or part of financial affairs. 38. The Adjudicating Authority has in detail considered the submissions of both the parties and has gone through and examined the transactions in question and has returned the finding that the transaction come under the preferential transaction and in paragraph 65 and 66 following directions were issued: "65. So far section 43 IBC 2016 is concerned, as we held transactions made with the respondent no. 1,2,4,5,6 and 7 come under the preferential transactions under Section 43 of the IBC,2016. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,97,50,000/- is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- and Respondent No. 5 is directed to r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in "Re Maneckchowk and Ahmedabad Co. Ltd". (1969) SCC OnLine Guj 22. In the above case, the Gujarat High Court was considering a petition under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning a scheme and compromise between the creditors and members of the Maneckchowk and Ahmedabad Co Ltd. While considering the said petition, High Court had occasion to consider certain allegations regarding the fraudulent preferences given by the Company. Reference was made to one of the deed of mortgage executed by the Company in favour of the Central Board of Trustee for the Provident Fund which was alleged to be fraudulent preference. In paragraph 18 of the Judgment, following observations have been made: "18...............If, therefore, it could be shown that the debtor acted under an apprehension that he would be prosecuted or under a threat of prosecution, the transfer of property by him could not be said to be a free volitional act of the debtor disclosing an intention to prefer the creditor but it would a pear that he has acted under the compulsion of the circumstances, may be of his own creation' Reference in this connection may be made to Sharp (Official Receiver) v. Jacks .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the decrees in favour of the five aforementioned creditors, which certainly call for investigation, have been set aside without having taken recourse to the proceeding in winding up and two mortgages one in favour of the Union Bank of India and the other in favour of the Central Board of Trustees of Provident Fund have prima facie no tinge of fraudulent preference. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the - submission of Mr. Vakil that the fraudulent preferences given by the company would go unchallenged and uninvestigated if the scheme is sanctioned." 43. From the above judgment, it is clear that the High Court has not given any concluded opinion with regard to fraudulent preference as was claimed in the said case and has observed that if the scheme is sanctioned the allegation may call for an investigation. The above judgement of the Gujarat High Court was followed by Bombay High Court in "M/s Monark Enterprises Vs. Kishan Tulpule", (1991) SCC OnLine Bom 461. In which in paragraph 31 and 32, following has been observed: "31. The next question which arises is as to whether the company had entered into the transaction dated February 18, 1987, with Monark Enterprises wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or all the parties. I propose to refer to only one case to justify the approach of the court to the problem under consideration. (In re Maneck chowk and Ahmedabad Mfg. Co. Ltd.) [1970] 40 Comp Case, 819 at 847, D. A. Desai J. (as His Lordship then was) of the High Court of Gujarat summed up the legal principle applicable in such a situation in his own inimitable style, after referring to the judgment of the House of Lords in (Sharp Official Liquidator V. Jackson) [1899] A.C. 419. The High Court of Gujarat observed that, if the transaction was done not with a view to prefer one of the creditors but to save one's own skin, the transfer could not, in such circumstances, be treated as a fraudulent preference. After referring to a passage from Buckley on the Companies Acts, 13th edition (1957), the learned judge observed that the expression "preference" implied selection and selection implied freedom of choice. The learned judge observed that a payment, in order to constitute a preference, must be voluntarily made, and that a payment made under pressure, e.g., in the context of proceedings, actual or threatened, by the creditor concerned, or fear of such proceedings, could not be co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erential or not. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional has rightly referred to Section 43, sub-section (3) proviso. We may notice that sub-section (3) of Section 43 provides for exception to preferential transaction and the proviso of Section 3 reads as under: "Provided that any transfer made in pursuance of the order of a court shall not, preclude such transfer to be deemed as giving of preference by the corporate debtor." 46. When the law mandates that any transfer made in pursuance of order of Court can not preclude such transfer to be deemed to be giving a preference there is no occasion for not accepting any transaction made in pursuance to a notice or demand issued by the Lender or by threat extended by lender for initiating any legal proceeding as preferential transaction. The legislative scheme which is clarified by the above proviso clearly leads to the conclusion that any transaction under any notice, demand or threat shall not lose its character of preferential transaction merely on the above reason. 47. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied on Judgement of the Madras High Court reported in "P.G. Vivekanandan & Ors. Vs. R.P.S. Benefit Fund Ltd. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain" (supra) case. 50. Reliance on the Judgment of United States Court of Appeals in "In re Fulghum Const. Corp." as well as Judgment of House of Lords in "Barclays Bank Ltd. vs. Quistclose Investments Ltd." can have no relevance and are not helpful in the present case. 51. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also referred to Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Canbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Custodian & Ors.", 2004 8 SCC 355. The above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not dealing with the provision pertaining to fraudulent preference or preferential transactions and the Court was dealing with the Benami Transaction Provision Act, 1988 and the Provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as well as Trust Act, 1882. Paragraph 15 and 16 of the Judgment which has been relied by Learned Counsel for the Appellant is not helpful in the present case. In the above case noticing the Judgment of the House of Lords it was observed that even monies advanced as a loan can be treated as impress with trust, when the monies are advanced for specific purpose. In the present case no issue has arisen to treat the money advanced to the Corporate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it appears expedient to observe that the arena and scope of the requisite enquiries, to find if the transaction is undervalued or is intended to defraud the creditors or had been of wrongful/fraudulent trading are entirely different. Specific material facts are required to be pleaded if a transaction is sought to be brought under the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 45/46/47 or Section 66 of the Code. As noticed, the scope of enquiry in relation to the questions as to whether a transaction is of giving preference at a relevant time, is entirely different. Hence, it would be expected of any resolution professional to keep such requirements in view while making a motion to the Adjudicating Authority." 54. What has been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that ingredients of Section 43, 45 and 66 are different and Resolution Professional is expected to keep such requirement in view while making motion to the Adjudicating Authority. When we look into the Application which has been filed in the present case the Resolution Professional has in the avoidance application in his application has dealt with preferential transaction undertaken by the Corporate Debtor and unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates