7/26/2017 Four cases that show invoking bankruptcy code is no panacea to resolving bad loans - Livemint

Home Industry Share

Last Published: Fri, Jun 16 2017. 04 23 AM IST

Four cases that show invoking bankruptcy code is no panacea to

resolving bad loans
NCLT and NCLAT rulings have left room for clarity on provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)

Jayshree P. Upadhyay | Gopika Gopakumar | Alekh Archana

Rulings by NCLT and NCLAT, in cases such as the one filed by the ICICI Bank against Innoventive Industries, have left room for clarity on provisions of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Photo: Mint

The big questions about how soon the insolvency and bankruptcy process will resolve the bad loan problem centre on the
infrastructure readiness of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). But even in cases where such resolution is already underway,
the process is hardly smooth. Rulings of the tribunal and its appellate body, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT),
have left room for clarity on provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) such as what constitutes a dispute,
principles of natural justice, and applicability of timelines.

NCLT, NCLAT orders have invoked mixed reactions. We are not getting one view from these adjudicating authorities. The
stakeholders are wondering on the implementation of this new regime. However, it is still early days. We are expecting clarity will
emerge in next few months, said Ashish Chhawchharia, partner, Grant Thornton Advisory Pvt. Ltd.

Heres a look at four such examples, where more than the cases themselves, the precedent set by the judgments is important:

Whats a dispute?

Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd (the creditor in this case) invoked the IBC against Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. The IBC provisions say
that the creditor needs to send a notice to the debtor seeking dues before it invokes the IBC. The debtor, on its part, needs to respond
within 10 days either by providing proof of payment or saying that dues are disputed. In this case, Mobilox filed a dispute claim on
the grounds that Kirusa violated a non-disclosure agreement. NCLT upheld this dispute claim and dismissed the bankruptcy
proceedings, prompting Kirusa to appeal. The NCLAT upheld Kirusas appeal. ruling that the debt was not connected to the non-
disclosure agreement. Then, it went on to explain the meaning of dispute.

In its order, NCLAT said that a dispute would include any proceedings already initiated or pending or even those which are proposed
to be initiated before a consumer court, tribunal, labour court etc. Earlier, disputes that had been considered were limited to
arbitration proceedings or suits. This wide definition is a source of concern, say experts.

A proposed
China to build rstdispute broadens
Mars simulation the Tibet
base near scope of dispute
to catch and could also leadTata
up with India to frivolous disputes
Motors expands and vehicle
commercial the creditor would need to prove
range in Philippines
that it is frivolous. This order which broadens the scope of dispute will lead to the extension of the 14-day timeline (for rejecting or

http://www.livemint.com/Industry/N864H3811Kk3bEKOVUaObI/Four-cases-that-show-invoking-bankruptcy-code-is-no-panacea.html 1/3
7/26/2017 Four cases that show invoking bankruptcy code is no panacea to resolving bad loans - Livemint

admitting a case) not just in exceptional cases but in many cases, said Tine Abraham, counsel at Trilegal, a law firm.

Flexible timeline

One of the strongest points of the IBC is the timelines it prescribes: 14 days for rejecting or admitting a case and 270 days for Share
resolution. An NCLAT order in a case involving JK Jute Ltd effectively weakens that. The appellate tribunal said the 14-day timeline
for rejecting or admitting a case under the IBC was a directive: that means courts do not have to necessarily adhere to this timeline. It,
however, said that once a case is admitted, the 270-day timeline for resolution is mandatory.

To admit or reject a petition is procedural in nature, a tool of aid in expeditious dispensation of justice and is directory, said the
order passed by justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya. The NCLAT said that while ruling on whether or not an application of insolvency of a
company is admissible, the tribunal is performing a judicial role and the sections of the Companies Act 2013 do not prescribe a
timeline for the Tribunal to pass orders. The NCLAT ruled on this issue after different benches of the NCLT passed conflicting orders.
The Mumbai and Hyderabad benches ruled that even admission or rejection was time-bound and the Allahabad bench ruled that
there was flexibility on admission and rejection of a plea.

Principles of natural justice

ICICI Bank Ltd filed the first case under IBC against Innoventive Industries Ltd in January. Innoventive contested the plea of
bankruptcy by ICICI, stating that it is not in default because the industries, law and labour departments of the Maharashtra
government had notified a suspension of the firms liabilities from 22 July 2016 to 21 July 2017.

The tribunal stopped all proceedings against the company. Later, the appellate tribunal observed that the company cannot seek
protection under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act as insolvency regulation is a special Act. In response, the Pune-based
steel producer challenged the constitutional validity of the bankruptcy law in the Bombay high court and also at NCLAT, stating that
the company was not given adequate notice before admission. The appellate tribunal turned down the appeal.

However, in the order NCLAT also directed that the adjudicating authority should adopt a cautious approach in admitting
insolvency application by ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The NCLAT further observed that in some cases
initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process may have adverse consequences on the welfare of the company. Therefore, it will be
imperative for the Adjudicating Authority to adopt a cautious approach in admitting insolvency application by ensuring adherence to
the principle of natural justice. It also stressed that the tribunal must issue a limited notice before admitting a case.

Role reversal

ICICI Bank had taken Starlog Enterprises Ltd to NCLT, which admitted the case on 17 February. The NCLT then appointed an interim
insolvency resolution professional (IRP). Starlog appealed this judgment at NCLAT. In its appeal, Starlog said that ICICI Bank on 6
February had asked the company to repay an overdue amount of Rs10.02 crore but before the NCLT the lender inflated this default
amount to Rs29.81 crore. Mint is awaiting ICICI Banks response.

In a 24 May order, the NCLAT imposed a penalty of Rs50, 000 on ICICI Bank for stating an incorrect claim amount. The appellate
authority also set aside set the order given by the Mumbai bench of the tribunal, which had admitted the case against Starlog.
Subsequently, the appointment of the IRP was declared illegal and the company was allowed to function independently through its
board. The company had pointed out events that followed IRP taking control of the management. Star log stated that the IRP violated
the code and some its action resulted in loss of business from longstanding clients.

First Published: Thu, Jun 15 2017. 02 15 PM IST

TOPICS: BANKRUPTCY CODE BAD LOANS NCLT NCLAT IBC

EDITOR'S PICKS

China to build rst Mars simulation base near Tibet to catch up with India Tata Motors expands commercial vehicle range in Philippines

http://www.livemint.com/Industry/N864H3811Kk3bEKOVUaObI/Four-cases-that-show-invoking-bankruptcy-code-is-no-panacea.html 2/3
7/26/2017 Four cases that show invoking bankruptcy code is no panacea to resolving bad loans - Livemint
Axis Bank set to buy Freecharge from Snapdeal for Rs350-400 crore

Share

RBI stops printing Rs 2000 notes, focus turns to new Rs 200 notes

Airtel Q1 results: Is the Reliance Jio impact wearing off?

Home Consumer Education

Companies Lounge Sports

Opinion Multimedia Specials

Industry Money Technology

Politics Science Mint on Sunday

Contact Us Mint Apps

About Us Shine

Advertising Hindustantimes

Sitemap Syndication

Subscribe DesiMartini

Privacy Policy Terms of Use Mint Code RSS

Copyright 2017 HT Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved

China to build rst Mars simulation base near Tibet to catch up with India Tata Motors expands commercial vehicle range in Philippines

http://www.livemint.com/Industry/N864H3811Kk3bEKOVUaObI/Four-cases-that-show-invoking-bankruptcy-code-is-no-panacea.html 3/3