THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2020
THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2020
CS Brajesh Tiwary
@8588828190
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 ("Ordinance") has become effective on June 5th, 2020, the date of its promulgation. The Ordinance suspends the initiation of CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") for 6 months.
The main reason behind the Ordinance, as stated in the
Ordinance, is the disruption caused by COVID -19.
The amendments introduced by the Ordinance are as
follows:
“10A. Notwithstanding anything
contained in sections 7,9 and 10, no application for initiation of corporate
insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor shall be filed, for any
default arising on or after 25th March, 2020 for a period of six months or such
further period, not exceeding one year from such date, as may be notified in
this behalf:
Provided that no application
shall ever be filed for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process
of a corporate debtor for the said default occurring during the said period.
Explanation – For the removal of
doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not
apply to any default committed under the said sections before 25th March
2020.”
Section
10A which deals with suspension of initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process mainly has two points to be looked into:
1. Effective date when the period of 6 months will begin to run – This date in our opinion is 25th March 2020;
2. The
proviso to section 10A saying that – “Provided that no application shall ever be
filed for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process of a corporate
debtor for the said default occurring during the said period.”
In our opinion, the interpretation of this proviso is that the expression "for the said default occurring during the said period"does not mean debt contracted/defaulted during the period.
Author’s
take: The default w.r.t. COVID-19 is more than double edged sword for the following reason:
Under the Contract Act, 1872, if
a subsequent intervening event impacts the performance, then only relief is
available. Likewise, where the default is attributable to COVID-19, and can be so
established, then only suspension should have been warranted. Otherwise, creditors’
interest will be unreasonably prejudiced and creditors at large may suffer. Sometimes a too general and liberal approach may not work.For example, in RERA, we have
seen multi layered extensions of registration/completion deadline due to extension flowing from different corners.
Apropos, there
will be lot of litigation in MSME space at Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council ( MSEFC).
No.2: The Ordinance also inserts
sub-section (3) to Section 66 of the Code
This prohibits the Resolution Professional from filing an application under Section 66(2) of the Code.
The provision of 66(3) reads as under:-
“(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no application shall be filed by a resolution professional under sub-section (2), in respect of such default against which initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process is suspended as per section 10A.”
Section 66(2) reads as follows:
“(2) On an application made by a resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution process, the Adjudicating Authority may by an order direct that a director or partner of the corporate debtor, as the case may be, shall be liable to make such contribution to the assets of the corporate debtor as it may deem fit, if-
(a)
before the insolvency commencement date, such director or partner knew or ought
to have known that the there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding the
commencement of a corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of such
corporate debtor; and
(b)
such director or partner did not exercise due diligence in minimizing the
potential loss to the creditors of the corporate debtor.
Explanation.
– For the purposes of this section a director or partner of the corporate
debtor, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have exercised due diligence if
such diligence was reasonably expected of a person carrying out the same
functions as are carried out by such director or partner, as the case may be,
in relation to the corporate debtor. “
Comments
Post a Comment