9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1700 - SC - Indian LawsPreferential transaction or not - scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 43 IBC - related party and look-back period - transactions in question are hit by Section 43 IBC or not - lenders of JAL could be treated as financial creditors of JIL or not - Financial debt-ratio of Pioneer Urban. Whether the transactions in question are hit by Section 43 IBC? - HELD THAT - The transactions in question are hit by Section 43 of the Code and the Adjudicating Authority, having rightly held so, had been justified in issuing necessary directions in terms of Section 44 of the Code in relation to the transactions concerning Property Nos. 1 to 6. NCLAT, had not been right in interfering with the well-considered and justified order passed by NCLT in this regard. Looking to the legal fictions created by Section 43 and looking to the duties and responsibilities per Section 25, for the purpose of application of Section 43 of the Code in any insolvency resolution process, what a resolution professional is ordinarily required to do could be illustrated as follows 1. In the first place, the resolution professional shall have to take two major but distinct steps. One shall be of sifting through the entire cargo of transactions relating to the property or an interest thereof of the corporate debtor backwards from the date of commencement of insolvency and up to the preceding two years. The other distinct step shall be of identifying the persons involved in such transactions and of putting them in two categories; one being of the persons who fall within the definition of 'related party' in terms of Section 5(24) of the Code and another of the remaining persons. 2. In the next step, the resolution professional ought to identify as to in which of the said transactions of preceding two years, the beneficiary is a related party of the corporate debtor and in which the beneficiary is not a related party. It would lead to bifurcation of the identified transactions into two sub-sets One concerning related party/parties and other concerning unrelated party/parties with each sub-set requiring different analysis. The sub-set concerning unrelated party/parties shall further be trimmed to include only the transactions of preceding one year from the date of commencement of insolvency. 3. Having thus obtained two sub-sets of transactions to scan, the steps thereafter would be to examine every transaction in each of these sub-sets to find (i) as to whether the transaction is of transfer of property or an interest thereof of the corporate debtor; and (ii) as to whether the beneficiary involved in the transaction stands in the capacity of creditor or surety or guarantor qua the corporate debtor. These steps shall lead to shortlisting of such transactions which carry the potential of being preferential. 4. In the next step, the said shortlisted transactions would be scrutinised to find if the transfer in question is made for or on account of an antecedent financial debt or operational debt or other liability owed by the corporate debtor. The transactions which are so found would be answering to Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 43. 5. In yet further step, such of the scanned and scrutinised transactions that are found covered by Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 43 shall have to be examined on another touchstone as to whether the transfer in question has the effect of putting such creditor or surety or guarantor in a beneficial position than it would have been in the event of distribution of assets per Section 53 of the Code. If answer to this question is in the affirmative, the transaction under examination shall be deemed to be of preference within a relevant time, provided it does not fall within the exclusion provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 43. 6. In the next and equally necessary step, the transaction which otherwise is to be of deemed preference, will have to pass through another filtration to find if it does not answer to either of the Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 43. 7. After the resolution professional has carried out the aforesaid volumetric as also gravimetric analysis of the transactions on the defined coordinates, he shall be required to apply to the Adjudicating Authority for necessary order/s in relation to the transaction/s that had passed through all the positive tests of Sub-section (4) and Sub-section (2) as also negative test of Sub-section (3). Looking to the legal fictions created by Section 43 and looking to the duties and responsibilities of the resolution professional and the Adjudicating Authority, ordinarily an adherence to the process illustrated hereinabove shall ensure reasonable clarity and less confusion; and would aid in optimum utilization of time in any insolvency resolution process. Whether lenders of JAL could be treated as financial creditors? - HELD THAT - Such lenders of JAL, on the strength of the mortgages in question, may fall in the category of secured creditors, but such mortgages being neither towards any loan, facility or advance to the corporate debtor nor towards protecting any facility or security of the corporate debtor, it cannot be said that the corporate debtor owes them any 'financial debt' within the meaning of Section 5 of the Code; and hence, such lenders of JAL do not fall in the category of the 'financial creditors' of the corporate debtor JIL. These appeals are allowed to the extent and in the manner that 1) The impugned order dated 01.08.2019 as passed by NCLAT in the batch of appeals is reversed and is set aside. 2) The appeals preferred before NCLAT against the order dated 16.05.2018, as passed by NCLT on the application filed by IRP, are dismissed; and consequently, the order dated 16.05.2018 so passed by NCLT is upheld in regard to the findings that the transactions in question are preferential within the meaning of Section 43 of the Code. The directions by NCLT for avoidance of such transactions are also upheld accordingly. 3) The appeals preferred before NCLAT against the orders passed by NCLT dated 09.05.2018 and 15.05.2018 on the applications filed by the lender banks are also dismissed and the respective orders passed by NCLT are restored with the findings that the applicants are not the financial creditors of the corporate debtor Jaypee Infratech Limited.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transactions in question are preferential. 2. Whether the lenders of JAL could be categorized as financial creditors of JIL. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Transactions in Question are Preferential: Background and Relevant Provisions: The transactions involved the corporate debtor, JIL, mortgaging its properties to secure loans for its holding company, JAL. The key provisions under scrutiny were Sections 43, 45, and 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. NCLT's Findings: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that the transactions were preferential, undervalued, and fraudulent. The Tribunal observed that the transactions were made when JIL was in financial distress and had been declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The mortgages were created without any counter guarantee from JAL and without any consideration paid to JIL, thus defrauding JIL's creditors. NCLAT's Reversal: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) overturned NCLT's decision, stating that the transactions did not fall under the mischief of being preferential, undervalued, or fraudulent. NCLAT held that the mortgages were made in the ordinary course of business and financial affairs of the transferees. Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court analyzed Section 43 of the IBC, which deals with preferential transactions. The Court held that the transactions were preferential as they were made for the benefit of JAL, a related party, and put JAL in a beneficial position compared to other creditors. The Court emphasized that the transactions were not in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of JIL. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the transactions were preferential and upheld NCLT's order to discharge the security interest created by JIL in favor of JAL's lenders. 2. Whether the Lenders of JAL Could be Categorized as Financial Creditors of JIL: Background and Relevant Provisions: The lenders of JAL sought recognition as financial creditors of JIL on the strength of the mortgages created by JIL. The relevant provisions were Sections 5(7) and 5(8) of the IBC, which define "financial creditor" and "financial debt." NCLT's Findings: NCLT rejected the claims of JAL's lenders, stating that the mortgages did not involve any disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money to JIL. Therefore, the transactions did not qualify as "financial debt" under the IBC. NCLAT's Reversal: NCLAT allowed the appeals of JAL's lenders without any discussion on this issue. Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court held that for a debt to qualify as "financial debt," it must involve disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money. The Court emphasized that the lenders of JAL did not disburse any debt to JIL, and JIL did not owe any financial debt to these lenders. Therefore, the lenders of JAL could not be categorized as financial creditors of JIL. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the lenders of JAL are not financial creditors of JIL and restored NCLT's orders rejecting their claims. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside NCLAT's order, and upheld NCLT's findings that the transactions in question were preferential and that the lenders of JAL could not be categorized as financial creditors of JIL.
|
