by Diksha Jain, who is a 5th
year student at the National Law University, Jodhpur]
(NCLAT) in its order dated 15 May 2017 in Innoventive
Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank has ruled on certain important
requirements to be complied with while admitting an application filed under
Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code). Section 7
of the Code provides for initiation of an insolvency resolution process by a
financial creditor against a corporate debtor. The appeal was filed against an
order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench (discussed
rejecting all contentions raised by Innoventive (the corporate debtor) and
admitting the application preferred by ICICI Bank (the financial creditor) by
holding it complete in terms of section 7(2) of the Code. Further, it declared
‘moratorium’ with regard to the affairs of the company, appointed an ‘Interim
Resolution Professional’ and passed interim orders under section 7 of the Code.
firstly, the order was passed without
giving notice to Innoventive and was thus against the principle of natural
justice as stipulated under section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act).
It was also contended that the NCLT, being a creation of the Act, is bound by section
420 of the Act, which required ‘reasonable opportunity of being heard’ to be
given to the parties before passing an order. Secondly, it was contended that the provisions of (Maharashtra
Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions Act (Bombay Act XCVI of 1958) (the MRU
Act, 1958), will prevail over the Code as it was a beneficial piece of
legislation. Lastly, it was contended
that ICICI Bank did not obtain consent from the Joint Lenders Forum (JLF) to
initiate the present proceedings.
of serving notice upon corporate debtor under Section 7
NCLAT was whether a notice is required to be given to the corporate debtor for
initiation of insolvency resolution process. The NCLAT examined various decisions
of the Supreme Court and also cited a recent Calcutta High Court decision in
the case of “Sree Metaliks Limited &
Anr. (Writ Petition 7144 (W) of 2017)”, wherein the Court held: “When the
NCLT receives an application under Section 7 of the Code of 2016, it must
afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the corporate debtor as Section
424 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates it to ascertain the existence of
default as claimed by the financial creditor in the application.” In conclusion,
the NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority is bound to issue a limited
notice to the corporate debtor before admitting a case for ascertainment of
existence of default based on material submitted by the corporate debtor and to
find out whether the application is complete and or there is any other defect
required to be removed.
held that section 238 of the Code is a non-obstante clause which overrides the
operation of the MRU Act, and thus the provisions of the Code shall prevail
over the provisions of the MRU Act.
the ‘adjudicating authority’ is required to satisfy – (a) Whether a default has
occurred; (b) Whether an application is complete; and (c) Whether any
disciplinary proceeding is against the proposed Insolvency Resolution
Professional. Once it is satisfied it is required to admit the case but in case
the application is incomplete application, the financial creditor is to be
granted seven days’ time to complete the application.
that beyond the abovementioned factors, it is not required to look into any
other factor, including the last question whether the consent of JLF has been
obtained or not.
observations made in the case
important criteria to be fulfilled before admitting an application under section
7 of the Code, given the fact that the Code is silent on such procedure to be
adopted under the said provision.
Natural Justice: Initiation of insolvency resolution
process may have adverse consequences on the welfare of the company and it is imperative
for the “adjudicating authority” to adopt a cautious approach in
admitting an insolvency application by ensuring adherence to the principle of
& 9 of the Code: While in section 7, the occurrence
of default has to be ascertained and satisfaction recorded by the Adjudicating
Authority, there no similar provision under section 9. Under section 7 neither a
notice of demand nor a notice of dispute is relevant, whereas under sections 8
and 9 notice of demand and notice of dispute become relevant both for the
purposes of admission as well as for and rejection.
The statute mandates the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain and record
satisfaction as to the occurrence of default before admitting the application.
Mere claim by the financial creditor that the default has occurred is not sufficient.
Section 238 of the Code clearly mandates that the provisions of the Code shall
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue
of any such law.