top of page

9 Landmark Judgements in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

1. Macquarie Bank Limited v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited (Supreme Court), Civil Appeal No. 15135 of 2017, decided on December 15, 2017

The said appeal raised two imperative questions:

A. Whether in relation to an operational debt, the provision contained in Section 9(3)(c) of the Code is mandatory?

— A fair construction of Section 9(3)(c), in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the Code, would lead to the conclusion that it cannot be construed as a threshold bar or a condition precedent.

B. Whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor?

— “…Section 8 of the Code speaks of an operational creditor delivering a demand notice. It is clear that had the legislature wished to restrict such demand notice being sent by the operational creditor himself, the expression used would perhaps have been “issued” and not “delivered”. Delivery, therefore, would postulate that such notice could be made by an authorized agent. In fact, in Forms 3 and 5 extracted hereinabove, it is clear that this is the understanding of the draftsman of the Adjudicatory Authority Rules, because the signature of the person “authorized to act” on behalf of the operational creditor must be appended to both the demand notice as well as the application under Section 9 of the Code. The position further becomes clear that both forms require such authorized agent to state his position with or in relation to the operational creditor. A position with the operational creditor would perhaps be a position in the company or firm of the operational creditor, but the expression “in relation to” is significant. …”

“It is clear, therefore, that both the expression “authorized to act” and “position in relation to the operational creditor” go to show that an authorized agent or a 59 lawyer acting on behalf of his client is included within the aforesaid expression.”

“….Since there is no clear disharmony between the two Parliamentary statutes in the present case which cannot be resolved by harmonious interpretation, it is clear that both statutes must be read together. Also, we must not forget that Section 30 of the Advocates Act deals with the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to practice one’s profession. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Section 30 of the Advocates Act and Sections 8 and 9 of the Code together with the Adjudicatory Authority Rules and Forms thereunder would yield the result that a notice sent on behalf of an operational creditor by a lawyer would be in order.”

2. Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (Supreme Court), Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017 decided on 21.9.2017

Section 9(1) contains the conditions precedent for triggering the Code insofar as an operational creditor is concerned. The requisite elements necessary to trigger the Code are:

i. occurrence of a default; 

ii. delivery of a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt or invoice demanding payment of the amount involved; and 

iii. the fact that the operational creditor has not received payment from the corporate debtor within a period of 10 days of receipt of the demand notice or copy of invoice demanding payment, or received a reply from the corporate debtor which does not indicate the existence of a pre-existing dispute or repayment of the unpaid operational debt.

On existence of Dispute:

“24. The scheme under Sections 8 and 9 of the Code, appears to be that an operational creditor, as defined, may, on the occurrence of a default (i.e., on non-payment of a debt, any part whereof has become due and payable and has not been repaid), deliver a demand notice of such unpaid operational debt or deliver the copy of an invoice demanding payment of such amount to the corporate debtor in the form set out in Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Form 3 or 4, as the case may be (Section 8(1)). Within a period of 10 days of the receipt of such demand notice or copy of invoice, the corporate debtor must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute and/or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute (Section 8(2)(a)). What is important is that the existence of the dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceeding must be pre-existing – i.e. it must exist before the receipt of the demand notice or invoice, as the case may be. In case the unpaid operational debt has been repaid, the corporate debtor shall within a period of the self-same 10 days send an attested copy of the record of the electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate debtor or send an attested copy of the record that the operational creditor has encashed a cheque or otherwise received payment from the corporate debtor (Section 8(2)(b)). It is only if, after the expiry of the period of the said 10 days, the operational creditor does not either receive payment from the corporate debtor or notice of dispute, that the operational creditor may trigger the insolvency process by filing an application before the adjudicating authority under Sections 9(1) and 9(2). This application is to be filed under Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 in Form 5, accompanied with documents and records that are required under the said form. Under Rule 6(2), the applicant is to dispatch by registered post or speed post, a copy of the application to the registered office of the corporate debtor. Under Section 9(3), along with the application, the statutory requirement is to furnish a copy of the invoice or demand notice, an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt and a copy of the certificate from the financial institution maintaining accounts of the operational creditor confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor. Apart from this information, the other information required under Form 5 is also to be given. Once this is done, the adjudicating authority may either admit the application or reject it. If the application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete, the adjudicating authority, under the proviso to sub-section 5, may give a notice to the applicant to rectify defects within 7 days of the receipt of the notice from the adjudicating authority to make the application complete. Once this is done, and the adjudicating authority finds that either there is no repayment of the unpaid operational debt after the invoice (Section 9(5)(i)(b)) or the invoice or notice of payment to the corporate debtor has been delivered by the operational creditor (Section 9(5)(i)(c)), or that no notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor from the corporate debtor or that there is no record of such dispute in the information utility (Section 9(5)(i)(d)), or that there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed by the operational creditor (Section 9(5)(i)(e)), it shall admit the application within 14 days of the receipt of the application, after which the corporate insolvency resolution process gets triggered. On the other hand, the adjudicating authority shall, within 14 days of the receipt of an application by the operational creditor, reject such application if the application is incomplete and has not been completed within the period of 7 days granted by the proviso (Section 9(5)(ii)(a)). It may also reject the application where there has been repayment of the operational debt (Section 9(5)(ii)(b)), or the creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor (Section 9(5)(ii)(c)). It may also reject the application if the notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility (Section 9(5)(ii)(d)). Section 9(5)(ii)(d) refers to the notice of an existing dispute that has so been received, as it must be read with Section 8(2)(a). Also, if any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any proposed resolution professional, the application may be rejected (Section 9(5)(ii)(e)).”

“28. It is now important to construe Section 8 of the Code. The operational creditors are those creditors to whom an operational debt is owed, and an operational debt, in turn, means a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services, including employment, or a debt in respect of repayment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Government or to a local authority. This has to be contrasted with financial debts that may be owed to financial creditors, which was the subject matter of the judgment delivered by this Court on 31.8.2017 in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos.8337-8338 of 2017). ….”

“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.”

“43. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the definition of “dispute” would indicate that since the NDA does not fall within any of the three sub-clauses of Section 5(6), no “dispute” is there on the facts of this case. We are afraid that we cannot accede to such a contention. First and foremost, the definition is an inclusive one, and we have seen that the word “includes” substituted the word “means” which occurred in the first Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill. Secondly, the present is not a case of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before receipt of notice – Section 5(6) only deals with suits or arbitration proceedings which must “relate to” one of the three subclauses, either directly or indirectly. We have seen that a “dispute” is said to exist, so long as there is a real dispute as to payment between the parties that would fall within the inclusive definition contained in Section 5(6). The correspondence between the parties would show that on 30th January, 2015, the appellant clearly informed the respondent that they had displayed the appellant’s confidential client information and client campaign information on a public platform which constituted a breach of trust and a breach of the NDA between the parties. They were further told that all amounts that were due to them were withheld till the time the matter is resolved. On 10th February, 2015, the respondent referred to the NDA of 26th December, 2014 and denied that there was a breach of the NDA. The respondent went on to state that the appellant’s claim is unfounded and untenable, and that the appellant is trying to avoid its financial obligations, and that a sum of Rs.19,08,202.57 should be paid within one week, failing which the respondent would be forced to explore legal options and ……”

Whether non-provision of Banker's certificate be construed as a ground for rejection of IBC Application?

“41. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the argument of Shri Mohta that the requisite certificate by IDBI was not given in time will have to be rejected, inasmuch as neither the appellant nor the Tribunal raised any objection to the application on this score. The confirmation from a financial institution that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor is an important piece of information that needs to be placed before the adjudicating authority, under Section 9 of the Code, but given the fact that the adjudicating authority has not dismissed the application on this ground and that the appellant has raised this ground only at the appellate stage, we are of the view that the application cannot be dismissed at the threshold for want of this certificate alone.”

3. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Anr. (Supreme Court), Civil Appeal Nos. 8337-8338 of 2017 decided on August 31, 2017

The difference between Section 7 and Section 9 of the Code:

“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 subsection (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.

30. On the other hand, as we have seen, in the case of a corporate debtor who commits a default of a financial debt, the adjudicating authority has merely to see the records of the information utility or other evidence produced by the financial creditor to satisfy itself that a default has occurred. It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is “due” i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date. It is only when this is proved to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the adjudicating authority may reject an application and not otherwise.”

4. Surendra Trading Company v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited and Others (Supreme Court), Civil Appeal No. 8400 of 2017 decided on September 19, 2017

In this case, the question of law framed by the NCLAT for its decision was whether the time limit prescribed for admitting or rejecting a petition for initiation of the insolvency resolution process is mandatory. The precise question was whether, under the proviso to Section 9(5), the rectification of defects in an application within 7 days of the date of receipt of notice from the adjudicating authority was a hard and fast time limit which could never be altered. The NCLAT had held that the 7 day period was sacrosanct and could not be extended, whereas, insofar as the adjudicating authority is concerned, the decision to either admit or reject the application within the period of 14 days was held to be directory.

However, the Supreme Court differed in its perspective and held as follows:

“We are not able to decipher any valid reason given while coming to the conclusion that the period mentioned in proviso is mandatory. The order of the NCLAT, thereafter, proceeds to take note of the provisions of Section 12 of the Code and points out the time limit for completion of insolvency resolution process is 180 days, which period can be extended by another 90 days. However, that can hardly provide any justification to construe the provisions of proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9 in the manner in which it is done. It is to be borne in mind that the limit of 180 days mentioned in Section 12 also starts from the date of admission of the application. Period prior thereto which is consumed, after the filing of the application under Section 9 (or for that matter under Section 7 or Section 10), whether by the Registry of the adjudicating authority in scrutinizing the application or by the applicant in removing the defects or by the adjudicating authority in admitting the application is not to be taken into account. In fact, till the objections are removed it is not to be treated as application validly filed inasmuch as only after the application is complete in every respect it is required to be entertained. In this scenario, making the period of seven days contained in the proviso as mandatory does not commend us. No purpose is going to be served by treating this period as mandatory. In a given case there may be weighty, valid and justifiable reasons for not being able to remove the defects within seven days. Notwithstanding the same, the effect would be to reject the application.”

“Further, we are of the view that the judgments cited by the NCLAT and the principle contained therein applied while deciding that period of fourteen days within which the adjudicating authority has to pass the order is not mandatory but directory in nature would equally apply while interpreting proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 7, Section 9 or sub-section (4) of Section 10 as well. After all, the applicant does not gain anything by not removing the objections inasmuch as till the objections are removed, such an application would not be entertained. Therefore, it is in the interest of the applicant to remove the defects as early as possible.

Thus, we hold that the aforesaid provision of removing the defects within seven days is directory and not mandatory in nature. However, we would like to enter a caveat.

We are also conscious of the fact that sometimes applicants or their counsel may show laxity by not removing the objections within the time given and may take it for granted that they would be given unlimited time for such a purpose. There may also be cases where such applications are frivolous in nature which would be filed for some oblique motives and the applicants may want those applications to remain pending and, therefore, would not remove the defects. In order to take care of such cases, a balanced approach is needed. Thus, while interpreting the provisions to be directory in nature, at the same time, it can be laid down that if the objections are not removed within seven days, the applicant while refilling the application after removing the objections, file an application in writing showing sufficient case as to why the applicant could not remove the objections within seven days. When such an application comes up for admission/order before the adjudicating authority, it would be for the adjudicating authority to decide as to whether sufficient cause is shown in not removing the defects beyond the period of seven days. Once the adjudicating authority is satisfied that such a case is shown, only then it would entertain the application on merits, otherwise it will have the right to dismiss the application.”

This judgment also lends support to the argument for the appellant in that it is well settled that procedure is the handmaid of justice and a procedural provision cannot be stretched and considered as mandatory, when it causes serious general inconvenience.

5. Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. M/s Hotel Gaudavan Private Limited & Ors. (Supreme Court), Civil Appeal No. 16929 of 2017, decided on October 23, 2017

An arbitration proceeding cannot be started after imposition of moratorium and that the effect of Section 14(1)(a) is that the arbitration that has been instituted after the aforesaid moratorium is non est in law.

6. Black Pearl Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Planet M. Retail Ltd. (Supreme Court), Civil Appeal 2973-2974 of 2017, decided on February 17, 2017

The duty of determination of an instrument or, to explicate, to determine when there is a contest for a particular document to be of specific nature, the adjudication has to be done by the judge after hearing the counsel for the parties. It is a part of judicial function and hence, the same cannot be delegated.

7. Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) & Ors. v. M/s AMR Infrastructures Ltd. (NCLT Delhi), C.P NO. (ISB)-03(PB)/2017, decided on 23.01.2017

The NCLAT has ruled that a purchaser of real estate, under an ‘Assured-return’ plan, would be considered as a ‘Financial Creditor’ for the purposes of IBC and is, therefore, entitled to initiate corporate insolvency process against the builder, in case of non-payment of such ‘Assured/Committed return’ and non-delivery of unit.

The Appellant had booked a residential unit, office space and a shop in a project being developed by AMR. The unit never came to be delivered to the Appellant. The Appellant had an MoU with AMR, whereby AMR had assured ‘Assured/Committed returns’ to him, from the date of execution of the MoU till the handing over of the physical possession of the unit(s). This was ostensibly done in view of the substantial down payment made by the Appellant. The Assured returns were paid for some time, however, the payments dwindled and then stopped altogether. Despite various demands, no further payments were made by the Builder. This constrained the Flat buyer to initiate Insolvency process against the Builder.

The NCLT dismissed the Application on the singular premise that the agreement in question was clearly a ‘pure and simple agreement of sale and purchase of a piece of property and has not acquired the status of a financial debt as the transaction does not have consideration for the time value of money. The NCLT held that disbursal of monies ‘against the consideration for the time value of money’ was an essential precondition for the debt to qualify as a ‘financial debt’.

The NCLAT, reversing the decision of the NCLT, ruled in favour of the Flat Buyer and held it to be a ‘Financial Creditor’. The operative part of the decision reads: “It is clear that Appellants are ‘investors’ and have chosen ‘committed return plan. The Respondent in their turn agreed upon to pay a monthly committed return to investors.”

NCLAT further went on to rule that the ‘debt’ in this case was disbursed against the consideration for the ‘time value of money’ which is the primary ingredient that is required to be satisfied in order for an arrangement to qualify as ‘Financial Debt’ and for the lender to qualify as a ‘Financial Creditor’, under the scheme of IBC.

8. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. v. Kamineni Steel & Power India Private Limited (NCLAT Delhi), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 335 of 2017, decided on 04.01.2018

The Hyderabad bench of the NCLT, in an insolvency petition against Kamineni Steel & Power India, allowed a resolution plan approved by 66.67% of its committee of creditors (CoC). The Hyderabad NCLT said in its order that Section 30 (4) does not say whether such percentage is out of the total voting share of the financial creditors or those present during meetings of the CoC. “Since IBC is a new code and still evolving, the above percentage has to be read with various circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has struck down an order passed by the bankruptcy court that approved a resolution plan for Kamineni Steel & Power despite the fact that it failed to receive the mandatory 75 percent vote share, a prerequisite according to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to get the plan endorsed by the court.

9. K.S. Rangasamy v. State Bank of India & Anr.(NCLAT Chennai), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 83 of 2017, Dated: 06/03/2018

“18. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 13th June, 2017. However, as we find that the Appellant has taken plea that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is ready to pay the total amount with 9% interest p.a. in 12 equal monthly installments, it will be open to the ‘Financial Creditor’ to settle the dispute, if the ‘Resolution Applicant’ proposes ‘lesser amount’ and ‘more time’ than the ‘amount and time’ proposed by the Appellant. In such a case, it will be also open to the concerned person to move before an appropriate forum to make the settlement absolute.”

If the offer of the promoters is better than the resolution plan, leeway has been provided to approach the appropriate forum to get the settlement recorded.

Read more at: 


bottom of page