CIRP Assignments For Insolvency Professionals Restricted to 10 Assignments with effect from 22nd July, 2021

Insolvency Professionals will not be in a position to accept more than ten CIRP assignments as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Board) has added a clarification under clause 22 of the Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals attached as Schedule I to the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016. This amendment has been notified on 22nd July, 2021 with immediate effect. The clarification also seeks to restrict the large assignments to three within the overall assignment limit of ten at any point of time. Large assignments mean where admitted claims exceed Rs. 1000 crores. The clarification reads as under:

Clarification: An insolvency professional may, at any point of time, not have more than ten assignments as resolution professional in corporate insolvency resolution process, of which not more than three shall have admitted claims exceeding one thousand crore rupees each.

Let us understand the impact of this newly added clarification:

  1. The amendment is effective from 22nd July, 2021. It is not clear whether this would apply to existing assignments in hand or the limit in number of assignments is to be applied for future assignments. For example, if the Insolvency Professional is already handling 12 assignments, would he be required to reduce it to 10 assignments? Logically, that does not seem to be the intent. The application of the clarification should be prospective and it should not affect the existing number of assignments. In other words, if an insolvency professional is already handling CIRP assignments exceeding the limit, he should be able to continue to handle them but he will not be in a position to accept any more CIRP assignment unless the number of CIRP assignments is reduced below the limit. The sub-limit applicable for large assignments would also apply in a similar way. However, a clarification from the Board is desirable.
  2. The clarification uses the expression “assignments as resolution professional” causing confusion as to whether this would include assignments as interim resolution professional. Also what happens if the insolvency professional continues to perform his duties as a resolution professional in his capacity as interim resolution professional where resolution professional is not appointed by the committee of creditors. Looking at the intent of the clarification and conjunct reading with the definition of resolution professional [S. 5(27)], which includes interim resolution professional, it can be concluded that assignments being handled as interim resolution professional would also be covered within the overall limit of ten assignments and sub-limit of three large assignments.
  3. The restriction applies only to CIRP assignments. This means assignments being handled by an insolvency professional as a liquidator or resolution professional under pre-packaged insolvency resolution process under Part II or resolution professional or bankruptcy trustee under Part III will not be counted for the purposes of limit of 10 assignments and sub-limit of 3 large assignments. The use of the words “ten assignments as resolution professional in corporate insolvency resolution process” is quite clear and leaves no room for ambiguity. The use of the expression “ten assignments as resolution professional in corporate insolvency resolution process” seems to be intentional. It, however, defies logic and reasoning as burden of handling liquidation cases is as cumbersome as that of CIRP assignments. The idea behind restricting assignments is to ensure effective handling considering clause 22 which provides that an insolvency professional must refrain from accepting too many assignments, if he is unlikely to be able to devote adequate time to each of his assignments.The expression “assignment” used in clause 22 is not restricted to CIRP assignments alone. It includes, in its ambit, all assignments accepted by an insolvency professional. Be that as it may, the language employed in clarification is clear and unambiguous to restrict CIRP assignments only. 
  4. Large CIRP assignments have been restricted to maximum of three within overall limit of ten assignments. Large assignments mean the assignments where admitted claims exceed Rs. 1000 crores. There seems to be some practical difficulty in implementing this. The amount of admitted claim is fluid and dynamic in CIRP assignments. At a given point of time, the admitted claims may be less than Rs. 1000 crores but may swell beyond this limit after a while. For example, an insolvency professional has accepted 10 assignments out of which 3 assignments are having admitted claims of more than Rs 1000 crores. This seems to be in compliance of clarification. What would happen if in two more cases, the value of admitted claims exceed Rs 1000 crores at a given point of time? Would the insolvency professional be considered in non-compliance of the Code of Conduct? Is he expected to shun two such large assignments? Whether he would be permitted by Adjudicating Authority to resign and leave the assignments mid-way? There is no clarity on these aspects at this point of time. However, it is suggested that insolvency professional must take appropriate steps to remain within the limits set in the clarification.

Conclusion : Welcome Step but Board needs to Clarify the Clarification!

This amendment was expected and this would ensure fair and equitable distribution of assignments besides ensuring that assignments are handled effectively by the insolvency professionals. However, some aspects, as noted above, require clarifications and the Board is expected to issue clarification clarifying the clarification!

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are for academic purposes alone and should not be deemed as legal or professional advise on the subject. If relied upon, Ashish Makhija, Author and/or Tranzission does not take any responsibility for any liability or non-compliance.

@Ashish Makhija:

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are views based on personal interpretation of the author for academic purposes alone and should not be deemed as legal or professional advise on the subject. If relied upon, the author does not take any responsibility for any liability or non-compliance.

NCLAT settles the crucial Issue: Speedy Liquidation Versus Endless Resolution

In a significant ruling in Kridhan Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Venkatesan Sankaranaryan & Another[1], NCLAT has held that timely liquidation is to be preferred over endless resolution. It has also held that unless the liquidation order is shown to contain material irregularity or fraud, liquidation order cannot be set aside using inherent powersin the light of specific provisions under section 61(4) of the Code. It has also categorically ruled that stakeholders’ consultation committee is different from committee of creditors and the decision of stakeholders’ consultation committee is not binding on the liquidator.

Briefly, in this case, upon failure of implementation of the resolution plan by the Resolution Applicant, NCLT directed liquidation of the corporate debtor as proposed by the committee of creditors. The Resolution Applicant aggrieved with this order filed an appeal before NCLAT alleging that it was not provided with an opportunity of being heard and that the order of NCLT ordering liquidation be set aside preferring ‘Resolution’ over ‘Liquidation’. Resolution Applicant undertook to implement the plan.

Here is the lowdown of the issues decided by NCLAT:

Speed is the Essence

NCLAT noted that prime reason behind enactment of IBC is time bound process. It specifically noted that “if an Adjudicating Authority extends the Insolvency Resolution Process beyond the timeline mentioned u/s 12(3) of the code, the same will be in negation of the underlying policy behind the court of ensuring timely resolution of Company Insolvency”.  NCLAT held that a “Timely Liquidation is preferred over endless Resolution process.”. Making it clear that time period mentioned in section 12 is mandatory and cannot be extended. It held that “If time specified by statute is changed, then it will give room for wider complications/implications, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal.”

Specifically noting that Resolution Applicant failed to adhere to the timelines for equity infusion as per the approved plan, NCLAT held that “the speed specified in the Code cannot be diluted as there is likelihood of adversely affecting the interests of both sides. If the same is delayed, maximization of value of assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ will weaken the realisation of potential creditors.”

Use of Inherent Power to set aside order of liquidation

On use of inherent powers under Rule 11 to set aside the order of liquidation as prayed by the Resolution Applicant, NCLAT noted that “it is well settled principle in Law that an ‘inherent power’ cannot be resorted to when there are specific provisions in Law to deal with the situations relying on the judgment of Apex Court in ‘Durgesh Sharma’ V. ‘Jayshree’ reported in Air 2009 Supreme Court at page 285. NCLAT refused to invoke jurisdiction under Rule 11 for setting aside order of liquidation.

Eligibility under Section 29A due to later development

NCLAT noted the strong objection of the Liquidator on the ground of huge default by the Resolution Applicant through its subsidiaries outside India. NCLAT held that provisions of Sections 29A(f) and (j) get attracted.

Stakeholders Consultation Committee recommendations are not binding on Liquidator

NCLAT upheld the argument on behalf of the Liquidator that “in so far as the ‘stakeholders’ consultation committee under the Liquidation process, unlike ‘Committee of Creditors’ under ‘Resolution process’ they do not have any power to determine and even their consultation is not binding on the liquidator.”


The judgment is unique as it deviates the beaten path of ‘maximization of value’ which is oft quoted to persuade NCLAT and NCLAT benches. The phrase has become a monologue to justify any attempt to resolve insolvency ignoring the crucial part of preamble which speaks of ‘time bound manner’.  This judgment notes the importance of timelines under the Code and sets an example that no matter what, timely liquidation is preferable over repeated attempts to resolution. This judgment is a trend setter in the era of IBC 2.0 and the NCLT benches are now armed to counter the over used phrase maximization of value.

[1] Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 202 of 2020

Understanding 2019 IBC Amendments

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of India has been the subject of interpretation at various judicial forums from Adjudicating Authority to Appellate Tribunal to Apex Court of India. Last amendment in 2018 brought in home buyers as financial creditors but many questions remained unanswered as most of the homebuyers did not participate in the voting process. New issues relating to distribution to operational creditors in a resolution plan cropped up with the judgment of Appellate Tribunal in Essar Steel in July 2019, which is now under a stay by the Apex Court.  

The IBC Amendment Bill 2019, introduced in Rajya Sabha on 24 July, 2019 was passed by Rajya Sabha on 29thJuly and by Lok Sabha on 1stAugust, 2019. It is awaiting President’s assent and the Central Government’s notification.

Here is the analysis of the 2019 amendments in IBC:

Ascertaining existence of default in 14 days by NCLT

A provision exists in the Code which mandates the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT for Corporate Insolvency) to ascertain the existence of default within 14 days of the receipt of the application from a financial creditor for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process. The use of the word `shall’ in the mandate cannot be overemphasized. However, this wasn’t being put to practice. The reasons could be either too much workload at hand (the application filed is not listed so soon before NCLT after filing) and the Courts reading principle of natural justice in this provision by issuing notice of the application filed to the corporate debtors. Naturally, the process of filing reply and rejoinders took longer than required 14 days. 

The amendment now requires the NCLT to record reasons if the ascertainment of existence of default is not done within 14 days of filing of application. Under the existing provision, it is incumbent upon the NCLT to dispose of the application within 14 days of the receipt of application and not only ascertain the existence of default. It is important to refer to section 64 of the Code which provides for expeditious disposal of the applications by NCLT. It also provides that NCLT should record reasons if the application is not disposed of within the prescribed time frame and that an extension should be sought from the President of NCLT by the Adjudicating Authority giving reasons of delay and the President is empowered to extend it for maximum of 10 days on the basis of reasons recorded. Looking through this prism, the existing provision intended to achieve the same objective that is now sought to be achieved. From a practical perspective, section 64 was rendered nugatory by the judgment of Appellate Tribunal in J.K.Jute Mills Company Limited vs Surendra Trading Company, 1stMay, 2017, wherein by a stroke of pen, the Appellate Tribunal held that the period of 14 days within which NCLT is mandated to admit or eject the application is directory and not mandatory. Unfortunately, this part of judgment wasn’t touched by the Apex Court in an appeal before it.

Being already covered by this judgment of Appellate Tribunal, the proposed amendment is a non-starter from the word go. If not, judiciary will find a way through this. It is flummoxing why a similar amendment has not been brought in section 9 and 10 which also mandate the NCLT to pass an order within 14 days of receipt of application.

Fixing the outer time-limit for completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

The Code boldly announced that corporate insolvency resolution process shall be completed within 180 days with an extension of maximum of 90 days; in all 270 days. The experience says as on 30thJune, 2019, 445 insolvency processes are going on beyond 270 days out of the total pendency of 1292; a whopping 34%. Time period of 270 days does not look to be practical due to cases going back and forth to Appellate Tribunal and to Supreme Court. 

The amendment now provides that whatever may be the reason of delay including the period consumed in litigation or stay, the overall time period for a corporate insolvency resolution process cannot exceed 330 days under any circumstance. The use of the phrase “shall mandatorily be completed”reflects the urgency and dictate of the Parliament. While granting outer limit of 330 days, the provision has been couched in a language which covers extension and exclusion of period for any reason curtailing the power of the Adjudicating Authority granted to it under the judgment of Appellate Tribunal in Quinn Logistics India P. Ltd. v. Mack Soft Tech Pvt. Ltd.whereby the Adjudicating Authority could exclude certain period from the 270 days for good grounds and unforeseen circumstances. 

There have been spurt in exclusion applications after this judgment and in few cases, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed exclusion of 270 days on the ground of non-cooperation by the personnel of the corporate debtor! The amendment wishes to rein this in but again judiciary may have the last laugh. The big question that arises is whether Quinn Logisticssurvives after this amendment? The amendment nullifies the judicial decision for now, but it remains to be seen – how long. 

In cases where 300 days have already gone by, the amendment provides that they must be completed within 90 days from the date of commencement of the Amendment.

Allottees’ (Homebuyers) Majority Decision Makes Their Voting Share Absolute

The allottees were considered as a ‘class of creditors’ and attained the status of financial creditors by an amendment in 2018 to be represented by an Authorised Representative in a Committee of Creditors (CoC), who used to vote in the CoC on their behalf as per the voting pattern by each allottee. Their voting share were counted on the basis of the debt due to each of them. Experientially, all the allottees never voted and they always fell short of their aggregate voting share. For example, in a CoC, if the voting share of 560 allottees was 66% and assuming only allottees holding 56% voting share voted, the decision was left at the mercy of other financial creditors in the CoC. The amendment takes care of this anomaly and it provides that once the allottees in a class of creditors take a decision by more than 51% vote (correct phrase would have been fifty one percent or more), the Authorised Representative shall cast the vote as if 100% of them have approved it. Here, more than fifty one percent is calculated on the basis of the votes cast and not total votes. Let us understand by way of an illustration:

Voting Share of aggregate of allottees in CoC66%
Voting Percentage of votes cast in favour of an item by allottees56% 
Voting Percentage of votes cast against the item by allottees10%
Voting Percentage of abstention of allottees34%
Overall Voting Share of allottees for the purposes of voting in CoC (prior to amendment)36.96 (56% of 66%)
Overall Voting Share of allottees for the purposes of voting in CoC (after amendment)66%

This is beneficial for the allottees as law now assumes that 100% of the allottees have decided in one way or the other if decision is represented by more than 51% of the votes cast. This makes their voting share in CoC absolute even though the actual voting share may be lesser. Authorised Representative shall, henceforth, vote as a group of ‘class of creditors’ and not as per wish of each allottee.

Anticipated Problem Due to Erroneous Drafting in 2019 Amendment

The problem, however, does not end here. The erroneous drafting is bound to make things complex. Assuming, the votes cast to arrive at a decision do not attain the benchmark of ‘more than fifty one percent’ (Votes cast in favour – 50.80% and against – 49.20%). It is not clear how the Authorised Representative will vote in such a situation. Instead of the phrase, ‘more than fifty one percent’, the use of ‘by majority’would have been appropriate and practical.

Protecting Interest of Operational Creditors and Dissenting Financial Creditors in a Resolution Plan

In order to further protect the interest of the operational creditors, amendment has been made in section 30. Now it is mandatory for a resolution plan to provide for minimum payment to operational creditors, which should be higher of amount that would have been paid to operational creditors under liquidation in accordance with section 53 or amount that would have been paid to operational creditors if the amount under the resolution plan would have been distributed as per order of priority stated in section 53 of the Code. Prior to amendment, it was restricted to the amount that would have been paid to the operational creditors under liquidation.

The change now enhances their chances of being considered for payment on a higher footing. Under liquidation, the amount would have restricted to ‘liquidation value’ but now the order of priority for operational creditors would be considered higher of ‘liquidation value’ and ‘amount under resolution plan’. 

 The dissenting financial creditors are also allowed to be paid the amount not less than the amount payable in accordance with order of priority in section 53 of the Code. The manner of such payment has been left to be specified by the Board. Consequent amendment has been made in regulation making power of the Board in section 240.

Interestingly, this provision will operate retrospectively for all cases where the approval of Adjudicating Authority to a resolution plan is pending, or appeal is pending or time for filing appeal has not lapsed, or where any other legal proceeding is pending against the decision of the Adjudicating Authority in respect of a resolution plan. Retrospective application of these provisions would make the process slow, complicated and may result in unintended consequences. Let us take a case where the application for approval of resolution plan is pending under section 30/31, the resolution plan, which is not in accordance with the amended provisions, will have to be re-drawn and re-approved by the committee of creditors. If the corporate insolvency resolution period is already over (original period allowed plus extension of 90 days plus exclusion), embargo of 330 days in section 12 will apply and it would make it legally impossible to grant more time eventually leading to liquidation of such a corporate debtor.   

 To overcome recent Essar Steel judgment of the Appellate Tribunal which paved way for parity of payment to operational creditors, the amendment now provides that the manner of distribution proposed must take into account the order of priority amongst creditors as laid down in Section 53 and the value of security interest of a secured creditor. The mandatory consideration of ‘value of the security interest of a secured creditor’ seems ambiguous and unnecessary. Section 53 disregards the value of security interest of a secured creditor, which means if the secured creditor relinquishes the security interest, the amount available is distributed proportionately amongst secured creditors regardless of the value of the security interest and ranking of their charge. This amendment is prospective and will not apply retrospectively to plans approved but pending for approval of adjudicating authority or pending in appeal or other legal proceeding. 

Resolution Plan Binding on Government and Government Authorities

An amendment has been made in section 31 providing that the resolution plan once approved shall also be binding of Central Government, State Government, local authority in respect of statutory dues owed to them. This amendment is clarificatory in nature as there was not any doubt in this regard but in some cases, the statutory authorities such as Income Tax etc interpreted it otherwise. By specifically including them here, the amendment paves the way for resolution plan being binding on Government and government authorities.

Decision to Liquidate Can Be Taken at Any Stage

The unamended provision gave ample powers to the committee of creditors to take the decision to liquidate at any stage of corporate insolvency resolution process. But some benches of NCLT ruled otherwise and in few cases passed strictures against committee of creditors if they decided to liquidate at early stages of corporate insolvency resolution process. Fortifying the intent of the Code that commercial decision to resolve or liquidate fall within the exclusive domain of the committee of creditors, the amendment now seeks to clarify that the committee of creditors is free to take decision to liquidate at any stage even before the preparation of information memorandum. This amendment would reduce the financial burden on the members of the committee of creditors as they will not be required to shell out CIRP costs and costs relating to keeping the corporate debtor as a going concern when they foresee no viability in the business of the corporate debtor. The amendment strengthens the decision-making power of the committee of creditors. However, this may not take away the power of Adjudicating Authority or Appellant Tribunal or the Supreme Court to examine whether such a decision has been taken fraudulently.

Retaining Books of Account Post Dissolution of a Corporate Debtor

Uncertainty remains as to how long the Liquidator should maintain the books of account of the corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Do they become bona vacantia? For clarity, it may be noted the Liquidation Regulations specify that the liquidator shall preserve specified registers and books of account for a period of eight years from the date of dissolution of the corporate debtor. These can be referred to as ‘books of the liquidator pertaining to liquidation’. The format of the registers and books of account has also been specified in the regulations. The regulations also mandate that the liquidator should complete the books of account of the corporate debtor if they are incomplete on the liquidation commencement date. The reference to books of account here is to ‘books of the corporate debtor prior to liquidator. In this sense, there are ‘books of the corporate debtor’ and books of the liquidator’.

The period of preservation of books of the liquidatorhas been provided in the regulations. But the Code and the regulations are silent on the period for which the books of the corporate debtorare to be preservedby the liquidator. Can they be destroyed upon order of dissolution?

The requirement of maintenance and preservation of books of account of a company is provided in the Companies Act, 2013 in following terms:

Books of Account are to be maintained for period of not less than eight financial years immediately preceding a financial year together with the vouchers relevant to any entry in such books of account. Where an investigation has been ordered in respect of the company, the Central Government may direct that the books of account may be kept for such longer period as it may deem fit (s. 128).

The company shall maintain and preserve at its registered office copies of all documents and information as originally filed for incorporation till its dissolution (s.7).

Interestingly, the Companies Act, 2013 deals with the disposal of books of account upon dissolution as under (s. 347):

  • The books and papers of a company to be dissolvedand those of the Company Liquidator to be disposed of in the manner as directed by the Tribunal.
  • After the expiry of five years from the dissolution of the company, no responsibility shall devolve on the company, the Company Liquidator, or any person to whom the custody of the books and papers has been entrusted, by reason of any book or paper not being forthcoming to any person claiming to be interested therein.
  • The Central Government may, by rules, prevent for such period the destruction of the books and papers of a company which has been wound up and of its Company Liquidator.

Under the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 [Applicable to winding-up governed by provisions of the Companies Act, 1956], the High Court, in its discretion, can pass orders directing disposal of the books and papers of the company and of the Liquidator.

Section 356 of the CA 2013 provides that the dissolution can be declared as void by the Tribunal upon an application being made within two years from the date of dissolution.

Similar provisions find no place in the Code or in the Regulations. The period for preservation for books of liquidator is provided in the Regulations but not for books of the corporate debtor. Section 347 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be applied for liquidation under the Code regardless of the fact that the same Tribunal has the authority to deal with winding-up under the Companies Act, 2013 as well as liquidation under the Code. In any case, corporate debtor under the Code is a broader term and also includes limited liability partnership and there is no question of extending the applicability of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 to a LLP. Winding-up process under the Companies Act, 2013 and liquidation process under the Code are two distinct processes under two different statutes.

Typically, the regulations should be amended to provide for the period of preservation of books of the corporate debtor. Until, this is done, the onus lies on the Tribunal using its power under section 60(5) of the Code to direct the period and the manner of preservation or disposal of the books of account of the corporate debtor upon the order of dissolution.

There may be case of pending investigation and litigation against the corporate debtor. Should the books and records be maintained till the end of investigation or litigation? The answer lies in the question itself. No corporate debtor should, ordinarily, be dissolved if any investigation, litigation or case is pending against it. Dissolving such a corporate debtor would be a huge lapse giving rise to a legal crisis.

@Ashish Makhija:

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are views based on my personal interpretation for academic purposes alone and should not be deemed as legal or professional advise on the subject. If relied upon, the author does not take any responsibility for any liability or non-compliance.




Challenges in Insolvency Resolution Cases Involving Property Buyers

Property Buyers under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) rejoiced when they were expressly considered as financial creditors following the prevailing confusion. Hohfield’s jural matrix  correlates power with duty. Property buyers [I prefer using this term than ‘homebuyers’ because of newly inserted Explanation to section 5(8)] were empowered to have a say in the committee of creditors (CoC). Having attained the position of power, they, however,  must not forget their duty to ensure that corporate insolvency resolution process goes on smoothly. On the contrary, few cases that are in progress shows that they are acting as bullies  like a mob swayed by varied opinions without weighing the options that are in their interest. The side-stepped promoters are enjoying the split  between home owners associations of different projects and even sometimes energizing the rift, and happily watching the hassled insolvency professionals. 

The task of insolvency professionals in real-estate cases under IBC is more of a public relation exercise, in which they are unfortunately not trained, with property owners eating away the precious time at hand  by engaging them through constant phone calls, emails, personal visits with all sorts of threats – veiled and open. The insolvency professionals who were used to their cosy offices are suddenly feeling the heat and pressure of a different kind. The complaints against insolvency professional are flowing thick and fast and the Regulators and Adjudicators are having a hard time.

Not only that, even property buyers are being harassed at the hands of IRP/RP and Authorised Representatives. The process has become cumbersome and unfortunately the Regulator has left it to be sorted out on its own without any deep thinking and research on the subject. Writing english by way of Regulations is easy but when it comes to implementation, the avoidable issues that crop up could have been easily taken care of. We see formation of numerous committees on these subjects with some members using their association on social media platforms for enhancing their own image and reputation. The resultant work is not showing results; rather it has compounded the confusion. Serious change in planning and strategy is called for. Regulator cannot get away by saying that ‘everyone is learning by the day’ at public forums.  Regulating is a serious business.

Let us look at some of the challenges being faced by interim resolution professionals or resolution professionals (IRP/RP) while dealing with property buyers and vice versa and here’s my opinion on resolving some of them:

Challenge # 1 : Replacing IRP

Replacing IRP is a time consuming process in cases involving property buyers. IRP constitutes CoC and convenes its first meeting with usual agenda items of  remuneration and expense approval, and an item for his appointment as RP. Perceptively unhappy with the IRP’s functioning so far, the trend in few cases reveals that property buyers have voted out the appointment of IRP as RP. The democratic vote process is the winner but here begins the difficult part. Who will now be in the saddle as RP? Assuming there are 5 projects in different state of progress, there is a deep split amongst the property buyers. Each project has an association leading its way. Consensus to one name is the most arduous process. Once that is done, begins the task of requesting the RP to convene a meeting. As per regulations, financial creditors holding a minimum of 33% voting share must make a request for convening the meeting of CoC for considering agenda for appointment of another RP. Here begins the ‘free for all’.

First Challenge

In many cases, RP has refused to entertain e-mails from property buyers directly advising them to bring it through the Authorized Representative. This is patently wrong as Authorized Representative is not a ‘be-all’ for property buyers as financial creditors; he is merely a link for taking their ‘will’ on agenda items to CoC meetings by representing them. This does not mean that property owners cannot communicate directly with IRP/RP or entertain their request for calling a CoC meeting. IRP/RP should soften their stand as it is not legally tenable. Law permits property buyers to file claims directly to IRP and sort out problems in verification stage. Hence, communicating directly with IRP/RP is not prohibited.

Second Challenge

This begins at the door of Authorized Representative. The property buyers are informed that any requisition has to come via an e-mail. No physical request with signatures of property buyers will be entertained. Property buyers have to pull all their socks and arrange e-mails from one and all to muster 33%. Once that is done, Authorized Representative claims having not received e-mails. Precious days are wasted in locating e-mails in spam, junk and trash folders. Authorised Representatives need to understand that they are there to serve the interest of property buyers and should make it easy for them by not insisting on communicating only through e-mails. The propogators of ‘ease of doing business’ would do well to look into this aspect or else India’s rank for ‘insolvency matters’ is likely to go down.

Third  Challenge

Once 33% voting share is mustered, Authorised Representative throws a spanner by not showing any urgency in forwarding the request to IRP. If by chance, he receives some emails (not aggregating to 33%) from some property buyers suggesting another name, other than the one recommended by 33% voting share, he insists on sending this agenda item to IRP/RP to be included in CoC requisitioned by 33%. This effectively means there will now be a contest between two insolvency professionals for  being appointed as RP. The Authorised Representatives easily forgets that initially he insisted for 33% voting share for any agenda to be sent to IRP.

Fourth Challenge 

The IRP who receives the forwarded request for CoC meeting springs a surprise by insisting that the resolution forwarded for appointment of an IP as RP must contain the remuneration part also. Another round of discussion takes place over few days ignoring the basic intent behind IBC for making the process as ‘time-bound’. Zero knowledge is understandable but half knowledge is a dangerous phenomenon. It is the prerogative of the financial creditors to propose any agenda item in a requisitioned CoC meeting. IBC does not require that resolution for appointment of RP should contain the remuneration also. It can be decided later on as RP may also not be aware of the volume of work involved at this stage. It is a matter of decision by CoC at any stage not necessarily along with the resolution for appointment of RP. Despite being convinced, IRP takes his own time sulking by the fact that his name was rejected by same group of creditors. Calling a meeting in companies in real estate is a painful process with lack of trained IPs and their misconstrued interpretations. IPs should take legal advise from experts on these issues and proceed on the basis of a legal opinion because everything cannot be written in a law or regulations or rules. The focus should be on being logical, reasonable and fair.

(This is part I of continued series of challenges facing resolution of corporate in real estate sector) 

@Ashish Makhija:

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are views based on my personal interpretation for academic purposes alone and should not be deemed as legal or professional advise on the subject. If relied upon, the author does not take any responsibility for any liability or non-compliance.

NCLT Knocks Out 137 Days from CIRP

NCLT Principal Bench in a recent order of NIIL Infrastructure Private Limited  directed exclusion of 137 days from CIRP period. The Bench was of the opinion that section 12(2) for extension of time as alternative prayer need not be invoked in the case. In this case, Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed by the Bench after a gap of 114 days after the tenure of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) ended. Though the IRP organised few meetings of the committee of creditors (CoC) but no decision could be arrived at on the appointment of RP. It was only after the intervention of the Bench that CoC resolved to appoint RP. Earlier also 23 days were lost when inadvertently different IRP was appointed than the one proposed by the financial creditor. The Bench, thus, excluded 137 days from the CIRP period relying upon Quinn Logistics India Pvt Ltd judgement of the NCLAT. This order paves way for exclusion of time as an alternative to extension of time where there is delay in appointment of RP.

© Ashish Makhija:

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are views based on my personal interpretation for academic purposes alone and should not be deemed as legal or professional advise on the subject. If relied upon, the author does not take any responsibility for any liability or non-compliance.