REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8766-67 OF 2019

DIARY NO.24417 OF 2019

Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited

Through Authorised Signatory ...Appellant

Versus

Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5634-5635 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5636-5637 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5716-5719 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5996 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6266 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6269 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1055 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1064 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1049 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1050 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1057 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1058 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1061 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1060 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1056 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6409 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1063 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6433-6434 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1066 OF 2019

1

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1087 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1110 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1113 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1121 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO._8768_OF 2019

DIARY NO.31409 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7266 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7260 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1246 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO._8769_OF 2019

DIARY NO.36838 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1296 OF 2019

J U D G M E N T

R.F. Nariman, J.

Delay Condoned in Civil Appeal Diary No. 31409 of 2019 and

Civil Appeal Diary No. 36838 of 2019. I.A. No. 102638 of 2019 in Civil

Appeal Diary No. 24417 of 2019 for Permission to File Appeal

allowed. Appeal Admitted.

1.This group of appeals and writ petitions raises important

questions as to the role of resolution applicants, resolution

professionals, the Committee of Creditors that are constituted under

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Code”), and last, but by no means the least, the jurisdiction of the

National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

“NCLT”/“Adjudicating Authority”) and the National Company Law

2

Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NCLAT”/“Appellate

Tribunal”), qua resolution plans that have been approved by the

Committee of Creditors. The constitutional validity of Sections 4 and 6

of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019

(hereinafter referred to as the “Amending Act of 2019”) have also

been challenged. These appeals and writ petitions are an aftermath

of this Court’s judgment dated 04.10.2018, reported as ArcelorMittal

India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019) 2 SCC 1.

2.On 02.08.2017, the NCLT, Ahmedabad admitted Company

Petition (I.B.) No. 39 of 2017 filed by Standard Chartered Bank

together with a Petition filed by the State Bank of India under Section

7 of the Code. One Satish Kumar Gupta was appointed as the interim

resolution professional, who was later confirmed as resolution

professional. On 06.10.2017, the resolution professional by way of an

advertisement in the Economic Times, invited expressions of interest

from all interested resolution applicants to present resolution plans for

rehabilitating the corporate debtor, namely, Essar Steel India Limited.

On 24.12.2017, the resolution professional issued a request for

proposal (hereinafter referred to as “RFP”), inter alia, inviting

resolution plans for the aforesaid corporate debtor, which was later

amended on 08.02.2018. Two resolution plans were submitted on

3

12.02.2018, one by ArcelorMittal India Private Limited (hereinafter

referred to as “ArcelorMittal”) and another by Numetal Limited

(hereinafter referred to as “Numetal”) both of which were found to be

ineligible under Section 29-A of the Code. On 02.04.2018, resolution

plans were then submitted by ArcelorMittal, Numetal and one

Vedanta Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Vedanta”). The resolution

plan of ArcelorMittal specifically provided for an upfront payment of

INR 35,000 crores in order to resolve debts amounting to INR 49,213

crores. It was stated that unsecured financial creditors shall be paid

an aggregate amount of 5% of their admitted claims. Apart from the

above, INR 8,000 crores of fresh capital infusion by way of capex and

working capital was also to be infused. INR 3,339 crores - being the

aggregate admitted claims of operational creditors, other than

workmen and employees, was to be paid to the extent of INR 196

crores, but only to trade creditors and government creditors. Small

trade creditors, defined as “having claims of less than one crore”

were to be honoured in full, as was the claim of workmen and

employees of the corporate debtor, amounting to INR 18 crores.

Importantly, the resolution applicant empowered the Committee of

Creditors to decide the manner in which the financial package being

offered would be distributed among the secured financial creditors.

Standard Chartered Bank, which was stated to be an unsecured

4

creditor, was to be paid an aggregate amount of 5% of its admitted

claims. On 19.04.2018, the Adjudicating Authority directed the

Committee of Creditors of the corporate debtor, which by then had

been set up by the interim resolution professional, to consider the

eligibility of the aforesaid resolution applicants.

3.On 10.09.2018, Standard Chartered Bank was classified as a

secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor by the resolution

professional. On 04.10.2018, this Court declared both ArcelorMittal

and Numetal ineligible by virtue of their resolution plans being hit by

Section 29-A of the Code. However, an order was passed under

Article 142 of the Constitution, stating that one more opportunity be

granted to both ArcelorMittal and Numetal to pay off the NPAs of their

related corporate debtors within two weeks of the Supreme Court

judgment, failing which the corporate debtor would go into liquidation.

On 18.10.2018, ArcelorMittal informed the resolution professional and

the Committee of Creditors that it had made payments as per the

Supreme Court’s judgment dated 04.10.2018. However, Numetal did

not make any such payment. As a result, on 19.10.2018, ArcelorMittal

resubmitted its resolution plan of 02.04.2018, which was then

evaluated by the Committee of Creditors on the same date -

ArcelorMittal being declared as the highest evaluated resolution

5

applicant vis-a-vis Vedanta. On 25.10.2018, the final negotiated

resolution plan of ArcelorMittal was approved by the Committee of

Creditors by a 92.24% majority. After several proceedings before the

NCLT and the NCLAT, the NCLT, by its judgment dated 08.03.2019

disposed of the application to allow the resolution plan filed by

ArcelorMittal as follows:

“…we are of the view that the dues of the operational

creditors must get at least similar treatment as

compared to the dues of the financial creditors on the

principle of equity and fair play as well as the

Wednesbury Principle of Unreasonableness and the

Doctrine of Proportionality, so as to avoid disparity in

making payments to the operational creditors having

debt value of Rs.1 crore and above (a token of Re.1)

and the allegation of discriminatory practice could be

ruled out…Hence, in our view, if a reasonable formula

for apportionment is worked out so that 85% of the

amount offered by the resolution applicant is distributed

among the financial creditors and the remaining 15% of

the amount is distributed amongst the rest of the

operational creditors, then the entire claim of the

operational creditors, which comes to around Rs.4700

crore can be substantially paid off or at least the

operational creditors can get 50% of their admitted and

undisputed claim in the light of the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chitra Sharma v. Union of

India (supra). Such object can be achieved, if the

financial creditor and the members of the CoC are willing

to sacrifice the interest component on their principal

loan, because it is established position in the record that

the principal loan liability of the corporate debtor

company comes to around Rs.35,000 crore in the year

2017 when these IB Petitions were admitted, which

includes the interest component also and by giving such

hair-cut to the interest component to the extent possible

by providing provision for 15% amount for the other

operational creditors and stakeholders, we are of the

6

view that debts of the entire operational creditors can be

satisfied in a reasonable and fair manner and then such

I.A.s preferred by the operational creditors would also

become infructuous and this Adjudicating Authority

would not be required to deal with the merits of each and

every I.A. Thus, this would be beneficial to avoid

multiplicity of legal proceedings and to remove any

impediment for effective implementation of the resolution

plan and to achieve the main theme and object of the

present I & B Code.”

4.By an interim order dated 20.03.2019 in the appeals that were

filed before NCLAT, the NCLAT directed the Committee of Creditors

to take a decision on certain suggestions that were made. Pursuant

to this, on 27.03.2019 the Committee of Creditors decided - voting

having concluded on 30.03.2019 - to appeal against the NCLAT’s

order, and, by a majority of 70.73% approved making an ex gratia

payment of INR 1,000 crores to operational creditors above INR 1

crore. Appeals filed against the interlocutory orders of the NCLAT

were then heard by this Court, which by its order dated 12.04.2019,

inter alia, directed non-implementation of the judgment dated

08.03.2019 of the NCLT and expeditious disposal of the appeal

before the NCLAT.

5.By its final judgment dated 04.07.2019, the NCLAT held that:

(i)In a resolution plan there can be no difference between a

financial creditor and an operational creditor in the matter of payment

of dues, and that therefore, financial creditors and operational

7

creditors deserve equal treatment under a resolution plan.

Accordingly, the NCLAT has re-distributed the proceeds payable

under the approved resolution plan as per the method of calculation

adopted by it so that all financial creditors and operational creditors

be paid 60.7% of their admitted claims;

(ii)Securities and security interest is irrelevant at the stage of

resolution for the purposes of allocation of payments, thereby

directing that each financial creditor (whether secured or unsecured)

with a claim equal to or more than INR 10 lakhs be paid 60.7% of its

admitted claim irrespective of their security interest;

(iii)Operational creditors by definition have separate classes within

themselves and can be classified into sub-classes for the purpose of

distribution (while rejecting any classification amongst the financial

creditors) on the basis of the admitted amounts thereby directing that

operational creditors with a claim of equal to or more than INR 1 crore

be paid 60.268% of their admitted claims.

(iv)Certain additional claims of operational creditors (some of

which were highly belated and/or without sufficient proof) were

admitted, such that the admitted operational debt of approximately

INR 5,058 crores at the time of the approval of the approved

8

resolution plan became an operational debt of approximately INR

19,719.20 crores.

(v)The profits generated by the corporate debtor during the

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as

the “CIRP”) would be distributed equally amongst the financial

creditors and operational creditors of the corporate debtor.

(vi)A sub-committee or core committee cannot be constituted

under the Code, being a foreigner thereto. The Committee of

Creditors alone are to take all decisions by themselves.

(vii)The Committee of Creditors has not been empowered to decide

the manner in which the distribution is to be made between one or

other creditors, as there would be a conflict of interest between

financial and operational creditors, financial creditors favouring

themselves to the detriment of operational creditors.

(viii)Section 53 of the Code cannot be applied during the corporate

resolution process but will apply only at the stage of liquidation.

(ix)Claims that have been decided by the resolution professional

and affirmed by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal

are final and binding on all creditors. However, claims which have not

been decided by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal

9

on merits may be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of

Section 60(6) of the Code.

(x)Financial Creditors in whose favour guarantees were executed,

as their total claim stands satisfied to the extent of the guarantee,

cannot re-agitate such claims as against the principal borrower.

6.We have heard detailed arguments made by Shri Gopal

Subramanium and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, on

behalf of the Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited.

They have argued that the provisions of the Code provide for a broad

classification of creditors as financial creditors and operational

creditors on the basis of the nature of the transaction between

creditors and a corporate debtor. They have further argued that the

Code does not mandate identical treatment of differently situated

creditors either inter se within financial creditors, who may be secured

or unsecured, and/or financial creditors vis-a-vis operational creditors.

The Code only posits equitable treatment of different classes of

creditors recognising that different classes deserve differential

treatment. According to them, financial creditors as a class have a

superior status as against operational creditors, the same being the

case with secured creditors vis-a-vis unsecured creditors. For this

purpose, they relied upon certain provisions of the Code. They further

10

argued that the general law of the land as contained in Section 48 of

the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882 and Section 77 of the

Companies Act, 2013 would not have been taken away sub-silentio

by the Code and have relied upon a large number of authorities for

this purpose. They also referred to and relied upon the UNCITRAL

Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law (hereinafter referred to as the

“UNCITRAL Legislative Guide”), which was referred to by this Court

in Swiss Ribbons Private Limited v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC

17, and upon a report by the International Monetary Fund titled

“Orderly and Effective Insolvency Procedures – Key Issues”. They

also referred to and relied upon judgments under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India which highlight the fact that classification is

permissible so as to differentiate persons who are unequal, who

cannot then be treated equally. They also argued, relying strongly

upon the IMF paper on “Development of Standards for Security

Interest” by Pascale De Boeck and Thomas Laryea, in addition to

several expert reports, that classification of creditors based on the

nature of the debt and/or security interest is a sine qua non for any

Insolvency Code. They argued that if secured financial creditors are

to be treated at par with unsecured creditors, such secured creditors

would rather vote for liquidation rather than Corporate Resolution,

contrary to the main objective sought to be achieved by the Code.

11

They then argued that the health of the financial sector is critical for

the overall health and growth of the economy, which would otherwise

be subverted, if the impugned judgment were to be given effect. They

relied strongly upon paragraphs 27 and 28 of Swiss Ribbons

(supra), in particular, which differentiated between secured and

unsecured creditors, most financial creditors being secured creditors

and most operational creditors being unsecured. They also argued

that the law laid down in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank

2019 SCCOnline SC 257, had made it clear that there is a judicial

hands-off when it comes to the commercial wisdom of the Committee

of Creditors, which has been directly infracted by the impugned

judgment, which has held that the Committee of Creditors has

nothing to do with the distribution of amounts which are infused by

the resolution applicant for payment of the corporate debtor’s

erstwhile debts. They relied heavily upon the Bankruptcy Law

Reforms Committee Report, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the

“BLRC Report”) to buttress this submission, as well as the UNCITRAL

Legislative Guide. They then submitted that a resolution plan is a

consent-based plan proposed by the resolution applicant for a

corporate debtor. The counterparty to such a plan is the Committee of

Creditors, which is required to give a minimum consent of 66% voting

share, which consent then becomes the basis for the Adjudicating

12

Authority to approve a resolution plan for the corporate debtor. Once

approved by the Adjudicating Authority, such plan becomes binding

on all stakeholders as is mentioned by Section 31 of the Code.

Therefore, any modification, as has been done by the NCLAT, of such

plan is illegal. They then argued that the Committee of Creditors has

both the power and the jurisdiction to deal with all commercial

aspects of a resolution plan, including distribution of proceeds under

such plan, and also referred to and relied upon the recent

amendments made to Section 30 of the Code. They stated that the

ArcelorMittal plan, as amended, looked after all stakeholders

including operational creditors, and stated that a staggering amount

of INR 55,000 crores qua operational creditors was paid during the

600 odd days of CIRP being carried out, operational creditors whose

claims were above INR 1 crore, now being paid approximately 20% of

their admitted dues. They also highlighted the fact that the secured

creditors have lost about INR 17,000 crores of interest in the last

three years due to the account of the corporate debtor having been

classified as NPA. They then argued that the setting up of a sub-

committee by the Committee of Creditors is permissible under the

Code, and referred to certain judgments to buttress this proposition.

They further argued that no decision-making power was delegated to

the sub-committee, nor did the sub-committee at any time decide or

13

even recommend on distribution of amounts. They then argued that

the NCLAT admitted various rejected/disputed/estimated claims worth

INR 13,767 crores, which was more than the amount originally

claimed by operational creditors. Various instances of non-application

of mind were pointed out by which claims worth INR 11,278, which

were not yet crystallized, were admitted by the NCLAT for payment,

and various examples of double payment were also given. It was also

argued that the NCLAT erroneously permitted several disputed claims

to be raised outside the provisions of the Code after approval of the

resolution plan, by referring to and relying upon Section 60(6) of the

Code, which merely saved limitation for barred claims. They then

argued that extinguishment of the right of creditors against individual

guarantees extended by the promoters/promoter group of the

corporate debtor was wholly illegal being contrary to several

judgments of this Court and contrary to the terms of the guarantees

themselves. They further argued that the profits that were made

during the CIRP can obviously not be used for payment of the debts

of the corporate debtor, as has been ordered by the NCLAT.

Ultimately, according to the learned counsel, the impugned NCLAT

judgment deserves to be set aside because it has curtailed the

authority of the Committee of Creditors; expanded the jurisdiction of

the Adjudicating Authority as well as the NCLAT beyond the bounds

14

contained in the Code; and has transgressed the most basic tenet of

the Committee of Creditors’ commercial wisdom being reflected by an

over 66% majority vote, which has been nullified by the NCLAT by

completely modifying and substituting the resolution plan approved by

the Committee of Creditors.

7.Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior advocate appearing on

behalf of the State Bank of India, has supported the submission made

on behalf of the Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited.

According to the learned senior advocate, whereas his client and

other secured creditors are secured to the extent of 99.66% of their

outstanding dues, the only security of Standard Chartered Bank is a

pledge of the shares held by the corporate debtor in an offshore

Mauritian subsidiary, namely Essar Steel Offshore Limited

(hereinafter referred to as “ESOL”), and the fair value of ESOL

pledged shares has been determined at only INR 24.86 crores as

against the total outstanding admitted dues of INR 3487.10 crores

(being 0.7% of the total admitted debt of Standard Chartered Bank).

Thus, according to him, Standard Chartered Bank is an unsecured

creditor to the extent of INR 3462.14 crores, and as against a sum of

INR 60.71 crores which was payable under the resolution plan as

approved by the Committee of Creditors, the NCLAT has now upped

15

this figure to approximately INR 2160 crores completely beyond its

limited jurisdiction under the Code. Apart from the above, he also

argued that Standard Chartered Bank is precluded from raising any

challenge to the constitution of a sub-committee as it had participated

in several meetings in which it raised no objection to the sub-

committee, and had in fact requested to be a part of the sub-

committee. He then argued that negotiations that were undertaken by

the sub-committee was in accordance with the mandate of the

Committee of Creditors, which alone took all decisions; the sub-

committee merely being an executive arm of the Committee of

Creditors.

8.Shri Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the Standard Chartered

Bank, defended the NCLAT judgment on all aspects. According to

him, the offer made by ArcelorMittal was to make a payment of INR

42,000 crores as an upfront amount in order to pay 100% of the

principal outstanding of the secured financial creditors of the

corporate debtor. That this sum came to be offered only as a result of

an offer made by Numetal on 07.09.2018 to pay INR 37,000 crores

as upfront payment to secured financial creditors. According to

learned counsel, the sum of INR 42,000 crores cannot be worked out

unless the principal amount owed to Standard Chartered Bank is also

16

included in the said figure. The figure of INR 42,000 crores was

stated by the counsel of the Committee of Creditors before this

Hon’ble Court, in the final hearing which took place before the

judgment in ArcelorMittal India (supra), and that this sum could be

the minimum value of payment with a scope for further negotiations.

However, what ultimately turned out is a payment of a lesser value,

namely INR 39,500 crores as upfront, INR 2,500 crores being added

as an eyewash towards Guaranteed Working Capital Adjustment. The

reason this was an eyewash is because Odisha Slurry Pipeline

Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as “OSPIL”), a wholly

owned subsidiary of the corporate debtor, owned a slurry pipeline.

ArcelorMittal, in order to ensure unhindered usage of the said slurry

pipeline, agreed that it would acquire the debts of OSPIL. In order to

achieve such acquisition of the debts of OSPIL, the Core Committee

of Creditors relieved ArcelorMittal from the solemn offer made to the

Supreme Court of India to pay upfront a sum of INR 42,000 crores,

and reduced from this said amount, a sum of INR 2,500 crores. Thus,

the Core Committee’s decision, as ratified by the Committee of

Creditors, was to accept a sum lesser than that guaranteed as

upfront payment by ArcelorMittal. Shri Sibal then trained his guns

against the very formation of a Core Committee/Sub-Committee,

stating that it is against the provisions of the Code, and that as

17

originally conceived, it was only to facilitate representation before the

Adjudicating Authority, which was over, in any case, by 31.05.2018.

The Core Committee however went on conducting secret

negotiations with ArcelorMittal by which it buried Standard Chartered

Bank’s debt almost completely. This was done by reducing Standard

Chartered Bank’s entitlement of INR 2585 crores (INR 2646 crores

minus INR 61 crores), if it were to have outstanding payments made

on the basis of value of debt instead of value of security. In any case,

it was further argued that the resolution plan of ArcelorMittal was itself

flawed in that it would be contrary to Regulation 38(1A) of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution

Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter

referred to as the “2016 Regulations”), as it did not deal with the

interests of all stakeholders. It would also be contrary to the RFP that

was issued on 24.12.2017, clause 4.6.1(d) of which stated that the

resolution plan should have contained a statement as to how it would

deal with the interest of all stakeholders including, but not limited to,

break up of amounts to be paid to secured financial creditors,

unsecured financial creditors and operational creditors, all of which

was left, thanks to secret negotiations with ArcelorMittal by the

resolution plan to the Committee of Creditors. Learned counsel then

argued that under the provisions of the Code, the role of the

18

Committee of Creditors is limited to considering the feasibility and

viability of the resolution plan, which does not include the manner of

distribution of the amount payable by the resolution applicant to the

erstwhile creditors of the corporate debtor. In any event, the decision

of the Committee of Creditors on the manner of distribution in the

facts of this case is illegal and arbitrary, as once a creditor is

classified as a financial creditor, such creditor is entitled to equal

treatment with all other financial creditors, irrespective of whether it is

secured or unsecured. For this purpose, the learned senior advocate

relied upon the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide as well as the BLRC

Report, 2015. According to the learned senior advocate, Parliament

has advisedly chosen not to create different classes of financial or

operational creditors when it comes to the process of resolution of

debts; and importance is given to the value of debt, as opposed to,

the value of security which is given importance only when the

liquidation process is to take place. He argued that Section 53 of the

Code would apply only during liquidation and not at the stage of

resolving insolvency as is clear from the fact that “secured creditor”

as defined by Section 3(30) of the Code is used only in Section 53 of

the Code which is contained in Chapter III entitled “Liquidation

Process” and not at all in Chapter II of the Code which is entitled

“Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process”. In Chapter II, only

19

financial and operational creditors, as defined, are spoken about. In

point of fact, in the 17

th

meeting of the Committee of Creditors held on

09.08.2018, the Committee of Creditors had earlier decided that the

upfront payment made shall be divided amongst financial creditors on

the basis of their voting shares, which in turn is fixed on the basis of

the debt that is owed to each one of them. He further argued that the

Committee of Creditors could not possibly decide the manner of

distribution as it would give rise to a serious conflict of interest, as the

majority may get together to ride roughshod over the minority. He

further argued that no categorisation can be made based on the

security interest of financial creditors, which security interest may

itself vary from first charge holders to second charge holders and

then to subservient and residual charge holders. The fact that

Standard Chartered Bank has been recognised, albeit only on

10.09.2018, as a secured financial creditor by the resolution

applicant, is not challenged by any of the other financial creditors.

Further, the valuation of pledged shares at INR 24.86 crores is itself a

flawed evaluation, the actual value of the shares being in excess of

US $600 million.

9.Shri Sibal then took us to the Amending Act of 2019 and

Section 6 of the Amending Act of 2019 in particular, which amended

20

Section 30 of the Code, shortly after the judgment of NCLAT in the

present case. This amendment was made in the Code with effect

from 16.08.2019. Shri Sibal’s first argument is that the aforesaid

amendment would not apply to the facts of the present case, in as

much as the amendment made is prospective in nature. Further, even

under Explanation 2 that has been added by the amendment, the

facts of the present case do not fall within sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of the

aforesaid Explanation. A reading of the amended Section 30(2)(b)

together with the Explanations contained therein, and the amendment

of Section 30(4) would leave nobody in any manner of doubt that the

purpose of the amendment was to get over the NCLAT judgment in

order that the huge amount of around INR 2,100 crores, that is

payable to a private foreign bank namely Standard Chartered Bank,

gets reduced to around INR 61 crores, so that nationalised banks and

other entities in which the Government has an interest may get a

larger share of the pie to the detriment of Standard Chartered Bank.

The legislature has, therefore, overstepped the separation of powers

boundaries to step in and legislatively adjudicate the facts of a

particular case. Even otherwise, according to learned counsel, the

provision is an arbitrary exercise of power which brings in Section 53,

which is applicable only when the corporate debtor gets liquidated,

into the Corporate Resolution Process, contrary to the original

21

scheme of the Code. Also, Explanation 1 directly interferes with the

judicial function and cannot state that a distribution shall be fair and

equitable, which can only be decided by the Adjudicating Authority

and not by Parliament. Also, the amendment made to Section 30(4)

cannot possibly include value of security interest of a secured creditor

within the expression “feasibility and viability” which has been done

only in order that it be applied to the present case.

10.Shri Arvind Datar supplemented the arguments of Shri Sibal

and also appeared on behalf of the Standard Chartered Bank. He

argued that the loan by Standard Chartered Bank to the wholly

owned subsidiary of the corporate debtor is also a loan towards the

project asset of the corporate debtor and that the State Bank of India

was fully aware of such lending that was availed of by the corporate

debtor. The wholly owned subsidiary is a Special Purpose Vehicle in

order to ensure availability of coal for the corporate debtor to cater to

enhanced production capacity.

11.He elaborated on the meaning of the expression “modifications”

contained in Regulation 39(3) of the 2016 Regulations, arguing that

the power to make modifications does not include the power to

discriminate among creditors who are equally situated. Also, the

Committee of Creditors cannot make rankings among financial

22

creditors or otherwise create a class within a class. He reiterated that

the status of Standard Chartered Bank as a secured financial creditor

has not been disputed by any member of the Committee of Creditors.

12.Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf

of Ideal Movers Limited, an operational creditor of the corporate

debtor, stated that the admitted claim by the resolution professional

was INR 178,50,51,792, and the original resolution plan contained

nothing by way of repayment to his client. It is only after the NCLT

judgment when INR 1,000 crores extra was paid by ArcelorMittal for

operational creditors generally, that his client would now receive

20.5% of the admitted claim. Of course under the NCLAT judgment,

he would stand to gain much more. He argued from a reading of the

preamble of the Code and some of its provisions that a key objective

of the Code is to ensure that the corporate debtor goes on doing its

business as a going concern during the CIRP as a result of which a

large number of operational creditors have to be paid their dues –

such as workmen, electricity dues, etc. It is for this reason that the

CIRP has to ensure the balancing of interest of all stake holders

which can only be achieved by a feasible and viable resolution plan

which is capable of effective implementation. He, therefore, argued

that the process of revival and the process of liquidation are distinct

23

and separate and have been so treated by the Code. This being so,

priorities of payment which apply in liquidation obviously cannot apply

when the corporate debtor is being run as a going concern as

otherwise secured creditors alone will be paid and not operational

creditors who are necessary for the running of the business. This

stems from the fact that the insolvency resolution process is to

maximise the value of assets of corporate debtors whereas the

liquidation process is to recover outstanding dues by selling the

assets of the corporate debtor. He relied strongly on certain

observations in Swiss Ribbons (supra) to buttress the aforesaid

proposition. He also argued that the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide,

being a guide to legislation, ought not to be looked at once the Code

has been enacted. He then argued, that it is obvious that the

Amending Act of 2019 has been made in a great hurry in order that

the NCLAT judgment be neutralised by law. This is clear from the fact

that the NCLAT judgment is dated 04.07.2019 and the Amending Act

of 2019 was passed only one month later i.e. on 06.08.2019. No

Standing Committee was consulted, as was the case of all previous

amendments made to the Code, resulting in completely arbitrary

provisions being inserted. He trained his guns against Section 4 of

the Amending Act of 2019, arguing that timelines cannot be imposed

or stipulated for the adjudication of disputes by any court, least of all

24

the Supreme Court of India. The period of time taken in court

proceedings cannot possibly be included within a timeframe as it

would then nullify the role of the Adjudicating Authority and the

Appellate Tribunal, and would defeat the primary object and purpose

of the Code, which is resolution rather than liquidation.

13.Shri Harin P. Raval, learned senior advocate appearing on

behalf of Kamaljit Singh Ahluwalia in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1058 of

2019 also assailed the Amending Act of 2019. Apart from the

arguments made by Shri Sibal and Shri Ranjit Kumar, he also argued

that the amendments made in Section 30 would be contrary to the

rationale and design of the BLRC Report, 2015. He also added that

the Amending Act of 2019, insofar as it applied retrospectively, would

be constitutionally infirm as it cannot be said that the amendments

made thereto are in any manner clarificatory but are new substantive

amendments.

14.Shri A.K. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for L&T

Infrastructure Finance Co. Limited in Civil Appeal No.6409 of 2019,

assailed the classification of his client as an operational creditor and

stated that, on facts, the appellant had entered into a facility

agreement, sanctioning a term loan of INR 75 crores to Essar Power

Gujarat Limited, a subsidiary of the corporate debtor. The borrower

25

then entered into a Promoter Obligation Agreement by which one

Essar Power Limited undertook an obligation to arrange for cheques

from the corporate debtor. INR 62 crores of such post-dated cheques

were issued in favour of this appellant, as a result of which this

appellant is also entitled to be classified as a financial creditor and

not an operational creditor. He thus assailed the finding of the

resolution professional, the NCLT and the NCLAT on this aspect of

his case.

15.Shri Mishra, learned advocate, appeared on behalf of Dakshin

Gujarat Vij Company, in which he submitted that the NCLAT had

rightly directed that the claim of his client should be considered with

all other creditors, and prayed in the alternative that directions be

issued that his client be entitled to recover the amount claimed,

subject to the decision of the court, from the corporate debtor as a

going concern. Similar were the submissions made by Smt.

Ramachandran on behalf of the Gujarat Energy Transmissions

Corporation Limited. Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel,

appeared on behalf of the State of Gujarat and supported paragraph

196 of the NCLAT judgment by which his client would be paid 60.26%

of Sales Tax dues. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior advocate

appearing on behalf of Mr. Prashant Ruia supported the findings of

26

the NCLAT, insofar as the NCLAT held that the personal guarantees

given by his client had become ineffective in view of the payment of

the debt by way of resolution to the original lenders. Further, Shri

Rohatgi also argued that the right of subrogation and the right to be

indemnified conferred on a guarantor under the Indian Contract Act

would continue to exist in the absence of a positive waiver of such

right by the said guarantor.

16.Shri Harish Salve, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf

of ArcelorMittal, referred to the appeal filed by the Standard

Chartered Bank, being Civil Appeal No. 6433 of 2019, and stated that

the remedy sought therein was restricted to quashing the impugned

judgment to the extent of paragraph 221 thereof which had held that

financial creditors in whose favour guarantees were executed, could

not re-agitate their claims against the principal borrower, as their total

claim stands satisfied to the extent of the guarantee, and that

therefore all the arguments made by Shri Sibal on behalf of Standard

Chartered Bank, being outside the scope of the appeal, ought not to

be considered at all. He further argued that since most of the

arguments of Shri Sibal would go to the validity of the resolution plan,

which Shri Sibal himself has stated that he is not assailing, should

therefore be rejected on this ground alone. He also argued that it was

27

wholly incorrect to say that only INR 39,500 crores would be an

upfront payment. He read to us certain documents which would show

that the guaranteed upfront payment INR 42,000 crores which his

client had committed very much continued and that INR 2,500 crores

which formed part of this figure was allowed by the Committee of

Creditors while negotiating with his client for very good reason.

17.Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel also appearing

on behalf of ArcelorMittal, stressed the fact that the importance of the

insolvency resolution process is that not only is the corporate debtor

to be put back on its feet, but that the resolution applicant whose plan

is accepted must be able to start on a fresh slate. This being the

case, obviously Shri Rohatgi’s argument, that the personal

guarantees of the erstwhile promoters do not stand extinguished and

that, at the very least, the right of subrogation cannot be taken away,

would boomerang upon the successful resolution applicant if such

right of subrogation were to be allowed to continue. Shri Salman

Khurshid and Shri P. Tripathi, learned senior advocates appearing on

behalf of Deutsche Bank, stressed that it was important to recognise

separate classes of creditors and reiterated the arguments made on

behalf of a number of their forbears as to how it is important to make

a sub-classification among financial creditors, as also among

28

operational creditors, so that there may be real equality, that is,

equality among equals. Shri Vikas Mehta, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of GAIL, adverted to paragraph 84 of the

impugned NCLAT judgment and argued that the facts qua his client

were wrongly stated inasmuch as the admitted claim figures are

wrongly stated.

18.Mrs. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General of

India, replied to the arguments of Standard Chartered Bank and the

operational creditors as to the constitutional invalidity of Sections 4

and 6 of the Amending Act, 2019. She argued that the amendments

further the objects sought to be achieved by the Code, which is

maximisation of value of the assets of the corporate debtor in a time-

bound frame. She pithily stated that the value of assets and the

passage of time within which insolvency resolution takes place are in

inverse proportion as the passage of time erodes the value of these

assets. She pointed out the previous experiments that had failed and

adverted to certain judgments to show that the failure of previous acts

such as The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985

(hereinafter referred to as “SICA”) and the Recovery of Debts Due to

Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as

“Recovery of Debts Act”) were due to enormous delays in disposal of

29

cases. It is this loophole that was sought to be plugged in accordance

with the original conception for the framework of the Insolvency Code

that is to be found in the BLRC Report of 2015. She also referred to

Regulation 39-C of the 2016 Regulations and 32(e) and (f) of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process)

Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Liquidation Process

Regulations”) together with Regulation 32-A(4) of Liquidation Process

Regulations, to state that a longer period than was originally given by

Section 12 of the Code is now given so that, taking into account court

proceedings, there must now be an outer limit within which either

resolution takes place or the company goes into liquidation. The

Regulations pointed out also show that even if the corporate debtor

goes into liquidation, 90 days is given to sell the undertaking of the

corporate debtor as a going concern so that 90 days over and above

330 days are also available to dispose of the corporate debtor as a

going concern. So far as the challenge to Section 6 of the Amending

Act of 2019 is concerned, she argued that there is a symbiotic

relationship between a resolution applicant and the Committee of

Creditors, who alone are to take a commercial decision by the

requisite majority whether or not to put the corporate debtor back on

its feet. The reason for Explanation 1 to Section 30(2)(b) is that, what

is fair and equitable must be determined within the framework of the

30

Code, which is the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors,

subject to certain minimum guidelines to be observed. Thus,

operational creditors who were originally to be paid only a minimum

calculated on the basis of what they would be paid in the event of

liquidation of a corporate debtor, are now to be paid the higher of two

amounts, thereby raising the threshold of what is to be paid by a

resolution applicant by way of a minimum to operational creditors,

being enhanced under the amended provision. Further, even

dissentient financial creditors are now to be paid a minimum

guaranteed amount for the first time, as 66% of the financial creditors

may give a certain class of financial creditors ‘nil’ recovery, in which

case this provision now comes to their rescue stating that they shall

not be given anything less than the amount to be paid to such

creditors in accordance with Section 53(1) of the Code. She also

argued that it is important to realise that the mention made of Section

53 in Section 6 of the Amending Act of 2019 is not in order that the

priorities as to liquidation be apportioned among creditors, but only in

order that a minimum amount be calculated so as to see that

operational creditors and dissentient financial creditors get something

more than what they would have got pre-amendment. So far as the

Explanation 2 of the substituted Section 30(2)(b) is concerned, she

relied upon this Court’s judgment in ArcelorMittal India (supra) and

31

Swiss Ribbons (supra), for the proposition that there is no vested

right in a resolution applicant to have its plan accepted. This being

the case, and an appeal being a continuation of the proceedings,

there is nothing wrong with applying the amended law in the three

cases that have been mentioned by Explanation 2. So far as the

addition to Section 30(4) by the Amending Act of 2019 is concerned,

the idea was to get over the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal in this

very case stating that sub-classification among different classes of

creditors may be done by the Committee of Creditors also on the

basis of the value of the security interest of a secured creditor. She

also read in copious detail, the Rajya Sabha Debate held on

29.07.2019 in which the Hon’ble Minister piloted this amendment.

According to her, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce

and Industry (hereinafter referred to as “FICCI”) gave a

representation dated 17.07.2019 to the Secretary, Ministry of

Corporate Affairs pointing out the flawed judgment of the NCLAT in

this very case and asking the Government to swiftly amend the Code

so as to reinstate the law as it originally stood, to which the

Government and Parliament responded by enacting the Amending

Act of 2019.

32

19.Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, has

supplemented the submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor

General by written arguments. He has argued that it is well settled

that the legislature can always take away the basis of a judicial

decision without directly interfering with the judgment of the Court,

and has cited several decisions to buttress this point. He also argued

that Shri Sibal’s assault on the constitutional validity of Sections 4

and 6 of the Amending Act of 2019 on the ground that the

Amendment was tailor-made to do away with the judgment in this

very matter, so that his client may walk away without anything, is

answered by the well settled principle that an Act of the legislature

cannot be attacked on the ground of improper or bad motive, and

cited certain judgments of this Court in support of the same.

Role of the resolution professional

20.The role of the resolution professional in the revival of the

corporate debtor is stated in detail in several Sections of the Code

read with the 2016 Regulations.

21.The ball starts rolling with the Adjudicating Authority, after

admitting an application under either Sections 7, 9 or 10, ordering

that a public announcement of the initiation of the CIRP together with

calling for the submission of claims under Section 15 shall be made –

33

see Section 13(1)(b) of the Code. For this purpose, the Adjudicating

Authority appoints an interim resolution professional in the manner

laid down in Section 16 – see Section 13(1)(c) of the Code. In the

public announcement of the CIRP, under Section 15(1), information

as to the last date for submission of claims, as may be specified, is to

be given; details of the interim resolution professional, who shall be

vested with the management of the corporate debtor and be

responsible for receiving claims, shall also be given, and the date on

which the CIRP shall close is also to be given – see Section 15(1)(c),

(d) and (f) of the Code. Under Section 17 of the Code, the

management of the affairs of the corporate debtor shall vest in the

interim resolution professional, the Board of Directors of the corporate

debtor standing suspended by law. Among the important duties of the

interim resolution professional is the receiving and collating of all

claims submitted by creditors and the constitution of a Committee of

Creditors – see Section 18(1)(b) and (c) of the Code. Under Section

20 of the Code, the interim resolution professional is to make every

endeavour to protect and preserve the value of the property of the

corporate debtor and manage the operations of the corporate debtor

as a going concern.

34

22.At the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors, which shall

be held within 7 days of its constitution, the Committee, by majority

vote of not less than 66% of the voting share of financial creditors,

must immediately resolve to appoint the interim resolution

professional as a resolution professional, or to replace the interim

resolution professional by another resolution professional – see

Section 22(1) and (2) of the Code. Under Section 23(1), the

resolution professional shall conduct the entire CIRP and manage the

operations of the corporate debtor during the same. Importantly, all

meetings of the Committee of Creditors are to be conducted by the

resolution professional, who shall give notice of such meetings to the

members of the Committee of Creditors, the members of the

suspended board of directors, and operational creditors, provided the

amount of their aggregate dues is not less than 10% of the entire

debt owed. Like the duties of the interim resolution professional under

Section 18 of the Code, it shall be the duty of the resolution

professional to preserve and protect assets of the corporate debtor

including the continued business operations of the corporate debtor –

see Section 25(1) of the Code. For this purpose, he is to maintain an

updated list of claims; convene and attend all meetings of the

Committee of Creditors; prepare the information memorandum in

accordance with Section 29 of the Code; invite prospective resolution

35

applicants; and present all resolution plans at the meetings of the

Committee of Creditors – see Section 25(2)(e) to (i) of the Code.

Under Section 29(1) of the Code, the resolution professional shall

prepare an information memorandum containing all relevant

information, as may be specified, so that a resolution plan may then

be formulated by a prospective resolution applicant. Under Section 30

of the Code, the resolution applicant must then submit a resolution

plan to the resolution professional, prepared on the basis of the

information memorandum. After this, the resolution professional must

present to the Committee of Creditors, for its approval, such

resolution plans which conform to the conditions referred to in Section

30(2) of the Code – see Section 30(3) of the Code. If the resolution

plan is approved by the requisite majority of the Committee of

Creditors, it is then the duty of the resolution professional to submit

the resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors to the

Adjudicating Authority – see Section 30(6) of the Code.

23.The aforesaid provisions of the Code are then fleshed out in the

2016 Regulations. Under Chapter IV of the aforesaid Regulations,

claims by operational creditors, financial creditors, other creditors,

workmen and employees are to be submitted to the resolution

professional along with proofs thereof – see Regulations 7 to 12.

36

Thereafter, under Regulation 13, the resolution professional shall

verify each claim as on the insolvency commencement date, and

thereupon maintain a list of creditors containing the names of

creditors along with the amounts claimed by them, the amounts

admitted by him, and the security interest, if any, in respect of such

claims, and constantly update the aforesaid list – see Regulation

13(1).

24.Chapter X of the Regulations then deals with resolution plans

that are submitted. Under Regulation 35, “fair value” as defined by

Regulation 2(hb)

1

and “liquidation value” as defined by Regulation

2(k)

2

shall be determined by two registered valuers appointed under

Regulation 27, which shall be handed over the resolution

professional.

25.After receipt of the resolution plans in accordance with the

Code and the Regulations, the resolution professional shall then

provide the fair value and liquidation value to every member of the

Committee of Creditors – see Regulation 35(2). Regulation 36 is

1 Under Regulation 2(hb), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution

Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - “fair value” means the estimated

realizable value of the assets of the corporate debtor, if they were to be exchanged on the

insolvency commencement date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s

length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had acted knowledgeably,

prudently and without compulsion

2 Id. Under Regulation 2(k) - “liquidation value” means the estimated realizable value of the

assets of the corporate debtor, if the corporate debtor were to be liquidated on the

insolvency commencement date.

37

important as it forms the basis for the submission of a resolution plan.

The information memorandum, spoken of by this regulation, must

contain the following:

“(a) assets and liabilities with such description, as on the

insolvency commencement date, as are generally

necessary for ascertaining their values.

Explanation: “Description” includes the details such as date

of acquisition, cost of acquisition, remaining useful life,

identification number, depreciation charged, book value,

and any other relevant details.

(b) the latest annual financial statements;

(c) audited financial statements of the corporate debtor for

the last two financial years and provisional financial

statements for the current financial year made up to a date

not earlier than fourteen days from the date of the

application;

(d) a list of creditors containing the names of creditors, the

amounts claimed by them, the amount of their claims

admitted and the security interest, if any, in respect of such

claims;

(e) particulars of a debt due from or to the corporate debtor

with respect to related parties;

(f) details of guarantees that have been given in relation to

the debts of the corporate debtor by other persons,

specifying which of the guarantors is a related party;

(g) the names and addresses of the members or partners

holding at least one per cent stake in the corporate debtor

along with the size of stake;

(h) details of all material litigation and an ongoing

investigation or proceeding initiated by Government and

statutory authorities;

(i) the number of workers and employees and liabilities of

the corporate debtor towards them;

(j) ***

38

(k) ***

(l) other information, which the resolution professional

deems relevant to the committee.”

26.Under Regulation 36-A, the resolution professional shall then

publish brief particulars of the invitation for expression of interest in

Form G of the Schedule. This document must also, inter alia, provide

for such basic information about the corporate debtor as may be

required by a prospective resolution applicant for its expression of

interest – see Regulation 36-A (4)(c). The resolution professional,

once he receives a proposed resolution plan, must then conduct due

diligence based on the material on record, in order that the

prospective resolution applicant complies with Section 25(2)(h) of the

Code (which, inter alia, requires prospective resolution applicants to

fulfil such criteria as may be laid down, having regard to the

complexity and scale of operations of the business of the corporate

debtor); the provisions of Section 29-A; and other requirements as

may be specified in the invitation for expression of interest – see

Regulation 36-A(8). Once this is done, the resolution professional

shall issue a provisional list of eligible prospective resolution

applicants to the Committee of Creditors, and after considering any

objection to their inclusion or exclusion, shall then issue the final list

of prospective resolution applicants to the Committee of Creditors –

see Regulation 36-A (10) to (12). Under Regulation 36-B, the

39

resolution professional shall issue the information memorandum,

evaluation matrix, as defined by Regulation 2(h)(a)

3

, and a request for

resolution plan within the time stated. Importantly, the resolution

professional shall endeavour to submit the resolution plan approved

by the Committee of Creditors to the Adjudicating Authority, at least

15 days before the maximum period for completion of CIRP, along

with a compliance certificate in Form H of the Schedule.

27.The detailed provisions that have been stated hereinabove

make it clear that the resolution professional is a person who is not

only to manage the affairs of the corporate debtor as a going concern

from the stage of admission of an application under Sections 7, 9 or

10 of the Code till a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating

Authority, but is also a key person who is to appoint and convene

meetings of the Committee of Creditors, so that they may decide

upon resolution plans that are submitted in accordance with the

detailed information given to resolution applicants by the resolution

professional. Another very important function of the resolution

professional is to collect, collate and finally admit claims of all

creditors, which must then be examined for payment, in full or in part

or not at all, by the resolution applicant and be finally negotiated and

3 Under Regulation 2(ha), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution

Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 – (ha) - “evaluation matrix” means such

parameters to be applied and the manner of applying such parameters, as approved by the

committee, for consideration of resolution plans for its approval

40

decided by the Committee of Creditors. In fact, in ArcelorMital India

(supra), this Court referred to the role of the resolution professional

under the Code and the aforesaid Regulations, making it clear that

the said role is not adjudicatory but administrative, in the following

terms:

“80. However, it must not be forgotten that a Resolution

Professional is only to “examine” and “confirm” that each

resolution plan conforms to what is provided by Section

30(2). Under Section 25(2)(i), the Resolution Professional

shall undertake to present all resolution plans at the

meetings of the Committee of Creditors. This is followed by

Section 30(3), which states that the Resolution

Professional shall present to the Committee of Creditors,

for its approval, such resolution plans which confirm the

conditions referred to in sub-section (2). This provision has

to be read in conjunction with Section 25(2)(i), and with the

second proviso to Section 30(4), which provides that where

a resolution applicant is found to be ineligible under

Section 29-A(c), the resolution applicant shall be allowed

by the Committee of Creditors such period, not exceeding

30 days, to make payment of overdue amounts in

accordance with the proviso to Section 29-A(c). A

conspectus of all these provisions would show that the

Resolution Professional is required to examine that the

resolution plan submitted by various applicants is complete

in all respects, before submitting it to the Committee of

Creditors. The Resolution Professional is not required to

take any decision, but merely to ensure that the resolution

plans submitted are complete in all respects before they

are placed before the Committee of Creditors, who may or

may not approve it. The fact that the Resolution

Professional is also to confirm that a resolution plan does

not contravene any of the provisions of law for the time

being in force, including Section 29-A of the Code, only

means that his prima facie opinion is to be given to the

Committee of Creditors that a law has or has not been

contravened. Section 30(2)(e) does not empower the

Resolution Professional to “decide” whether the resolution

41

plan does or does not contravene the provisions of law.

Regulation 36-A of the CIRP Regulations specifically

provides as follows:

“36-A. (8) The resolution professional shall conduct due

diligence based on the material on record in order to satisfy

that the prospective resolution applicant complies with—

(a) the provisions of clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section

25;

(b) the applicable provisions of Section 29-A, and

(c) other requirements, as specified in the invitation for

expression of interest.

(9) The resolution professional may seek any clarification

or additional information or document from the prospective

resolution applicant for conducting due diligence under

sub-regulation (8).

(10) The resolution professional shall issue a provisional

list of eligible prospective resolution applicants within ten

days of the last date for submission of expression of

interest to the committee and to all prospective resolution

applicants who submitted the expression of interest.

(11) Any objection to inclusion or exclusion of a prospective

resolution applicant in the provisional list referred to in sub-

regulation (10) may be made with supporting documents

within five days from the date of issue of the provisional list.

(12) On considering the objections received under sub-

regulation (11), the resolution professional shall issue the

final list of prospective resolution applicants within ten days

of the last date for receipt of objections, to the committee.”

81. Thus, the importance of the Resolution Professional is

to ensure that a resolution plan is complete in all respects,

and to conduct a due diligence in order to report to the

Committee of Creditors whether or not it is in order. Even

though it is not necessary for the Resolution Professional

to give reasons while submitting a resolution plan to the

Committee of Creditors, it would be in the fitness of things

if he appends the due diligence report carried out by him

with respect to each of the resolution plans under

consideration, and to state briefly as to why it does or does

not conform to the law.”

42

Role of the prospective resolution applicant

28.The UNCITRAL Legislative Guide discusses what ought to be the

contents of a resolution plan in an Insolvency Code in the following

terms:

“4. The plan

xxx xxx xxx

18. The question of what is to be included in the plan is

closely related to the procedure for approval of the plan,

that is, which creditors are required to approve the plan

and the level of support required for approval, the effect of

the plan once approved, that is, will it bind dissenting

creditors and secured creditors and who will be responsible

for implementation of the plan and for ongoing

management of the debtor, and whether or not there is a

requirement for court confirmation. Many insolvency laws

include provisions addressing the content of the

reorganization plan. Some laws address the content of the

plan by reference to general criteria, such as requirements

that the reorganization plan should adequately and clearly

disclose to all parties information regarding both the

financial condition of the debtor and the transformation of

legal rights that is being proposed in the plan, or by

reference to minimal requirements, such as that the plan

must make provision for payment of certain preferred

claims. It should be noted that a plan need not modify or

otherwise affect the rights of every class of creditor.

19. Other laws set out more specific requirements as to

what information is required in relation to the debtor’s

financial situation and the proposals that can be included in

a plan. Information on the financial situation of the debtor

could include asset and liability statements; cash flow

statements; and information relating to the causes or

reasons for the financial situation of the debtor. Information

relating to what is proposed by the plan could include,

depending upon the objective of the plan and the

circumstances of a particular debtor, details of classes of

43

claims; claims modified or affected under the plan and the

treatment to be accorded to each class under the plan; the

continuation or rejection of contracts that are not fully

executed; the treatment of unexpired leases; measures

and arrangements for dealing with the debtor’s assets (e.g.

transfer, liquidation or retention); the sale or other

treatment of encumbered assets; the disclosure and

acceptance procedure; the rights of disputed claims to take

part in the voting and provisions for disputed claims to be

resolved; arrangements concerning personnel of the

debtor; remuneration of management of the debtor;

financing implementation of the plan; extension of the

maturity date or a change in the interest rate or other term

of outstanding security interests; the role to be played by

the debtor in implementation of the plan and identification

of those to be responsible for future management of the

debtor’s business; the settlement of claims and how the

amount that creditors will receive will be more than they

would have received in liquidation; payment of interest on

claims; distribution of all or any part of the assets of the

estate among those having an interest in those assets;

possible changes to the instrument or organic document

constituting the debtor (e.g. changes to by-laws or articles

of association) or the capital structure of the debtor or

merger or consolidation of the debtor with one or more

persons; the basis upon which the business will be able to

keep trading and can be successfully reorganized;

supervision of the implementation of the plan; and the

period of implementation of the plan, including in some

cases a statutory maximum period.

20. Rather than specifying a wide range of detailed

information to be included in a plan, it may be desirable for

the insolvency law to identify the minimum content of a

plan, focusing upon the key objectives of the plan and

procedures for implementation. For example, the

insolvency law may require the plan to detail the classes of

creditors and the treatment each is to be accorded in the

plan; the terms and conditions of the plan (such as

treatment of contracts and the ongoing role of the debtor);

and what is required for implementation of the plan (such

44

as sale of assets or parts of the business, extension of

maturity dates, changes to capital structure of the business

and supervision of implementation).”

29.Under the Code, the prospective resolution applicant has a right

to receive complete information as to the corporate debtor, debts

owed by it, and its activities as a going concern, prior to the

admission of an application under section 7, 9 or 10 of the Code. For

this purpose, it has a right to receive information contained in the

information memorandum as well as the evaluation matrix mentioned

in Regulation 36-B. Once it evinces an expression of interest, what

follows is laid down in Regulation 36-A(7) which reads as follows:

“36-A. Invitation for Expression of Interest

xxx xxx xxx

(7) An expression of interest shall be unconditional and be

accompanied by-

(a) an undertaking by the prospective resolution applicant

that it meets the criteria specified by the committee under

clause (h) of sub-section (2) of section 25;

(b) relevant records in evidence of meeting the criteria

under clause (a);

(c) an undertaking by the prospective resolution applicant

that it does not suffer from any ineligibility under section

29A to the extent applicable;

(d) relevant information and records to enable an

assessment of ineligibility under clause (c);

(e) an undertaking by the prospective resolution applicant

that it shall intimate the resolution professional forthwith if it

becomes ineligible at any time during the corporate

insolvency resolution process;

45

(f) an undertaking by the prospective resolution applicant

that every information and records provided in expression

of interest is true and correct and discovery of any false

information or record at any time will render the applicant

ineligible to submit resolution plan, forfeit any refundable

deposit, and attract penal action under the Code; and

(g) an undertaking by the prospective resolution applicant

to the effect that it shall maintain confidentiality of the

information and shall not use such information to cause an

undue gain or undue loss to itself or any other person and

comply with the requirements under sub-section (2) of

section 29”

Thereafter, the resolution plan submitted by the prospective

resolution applicant must provide for measures as may be necessary

for the insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor for maximisation

of the value of its assets, which may include transfer or sale of assets

or part thereof, whether subject to security interests or not. The plan

may provide for either satisfaction or modification of any security

interest of a secured creditor and may also provide for reduction in

the amount payable to different classes of creditors – see Regulation

37.

30.Accordingly, Regulation 38 then deals with the mandatory

contents of a resolution plan, making it clear that such plan must

contain a provision that the amount due to operational creditors shall

be given priority in payment over financial creditors – see Regulation

38(1). Such plan must also include provisions as to how to deal with

the interests of all stakeholders including financial creditors and

46

operational creditors of the corporate debtor – Regulation 38 (1A). It

must then provide for the term of the plan, management and control

of the business of the corporate debtor during such term, and its

implementation. It must also demonstrate that it is feasible and viable,

and that the resolution applicant has the capability to implement the

said plan. Regulation 38, being important, is set out hereinbelow:

“38. Mandatory contents of the resolution plan

(1) The amount due to the operational creditors under a

resolution plan shall be given priority in payment over

financial creditors.

(1A) A resolution plan shall include a statement as to how it

has dealt with the interests of all stakeholders, including

financial creditors and operational creditors, of the

corporate debtor.

(2) A resolution plan shall provide:

(a) the term of the plan and its implementation schedule;

(b) the management and control of the business of the

corporate debtor during its term; and

(c) adequate means for supervising its implementation.

(3) A resolution plan shall demonstrate that –

(a) it addresses the cause of default;

(b) it is feasible and viable;

(c) it has provisions for its effective implementation;

(d) it has provisions for approvals required and the timeline

for the same; and

(e) the resolution applicant has the capability to implement

the resolution plan.”

Role of the committee of creditors in the corporate resolution

process

47

31.Since it is the commercial wisdom of the Committee of

Creditors that is to decide on whether or not to rehabilitate the

corporate debtor by means of acceptance of a particular resolution

plan, the provisions of the Code and the Regulations outline in detail

the importance of setting up of such Committee, and leaving

decisions to be made by the requisite majority of the members of the

aforesaid Committee in its discretion. Thus, Section 21(2) of the Code

mandates that the Committee of Creditors shall comprise all financial

creditors of the corporate debtor. “Financial creditors” are defined in

Section 5(7) of the Code as meaning persons to whom a financial

debt is owed and includes a person to whom such debt has been

legally assigned or transferred. “Financial debt” is then defined in

Section 5(8) of the Code as meaning a debt along with interest, if any,

which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of

money. “Secured creditor” is separately defined in Section 3(30) of

the Code as meaning a creditor in favour of whom a security interest

is created and “security interest” is defined by Section 3(31) as

follows:

“3. Definitions. – In this Code, unless the context

otherwise requires. –

xxx xxx xxx

(31) "security interest" means right, title or interest or a

claim to property, created in favour of, or provided for a

secured creditor by a transaction which secures payment

48

or performance of an obligation and includes mortgage,

charge, hypothecation, assignment and encumbrance or

any other agreement or arrangement securing payment or

performance of any obligation of any person:

Provided that security interest shall not include a

performance guarantee;”

32.It is settled by several judgments of this Court that in order to

trigger application of the Code, a neat division has been made

between financial creditors and operational creditors. It has also been

noticed in some of our judgments that most financial creditors are

secured creditors and most operational creditors are unsecured

creditors. The rationale for only financial creditors handling the affairs

of the corporate debtor and resolving them is for reasons that have

been deliberated upon by the BLRC Report of 2015, which formed

the basis for the enactment of the Insolvency Code.

33.At this juncture, it is important to set out the relevant extracts

from the aforementioned report:

“2. Executive Summary

xxx xxx xxx

The key economic question in the bankruptcy process

xxx xxx xxx

The Committee believes that there is only one correct

forum for evaluating such possibilities, and making a

decision: a creditors committee, where all financial

creditors have votes in proportion to the magnitude of debt

that they hold. In the past, laws in India have brought arms

of the government (legislature, executive or judiciary) into

this question. This has been strictly avoided by the

49

Committee. The appropriate disposition of a defaulting firm

is a business decision, and only the creditors should make

it.

xxx xxx xxx

5. Process for legal entities

xxx xxx xxx

Business decisions by a creditor committee

All decisions on matters of business will be taken by a

committee of the financial creditors. This includes

evaluating proposals to keep the entity as a going concern,

including decisions about the sale of business or units,

retiring or restructuring debt. The debtor will be a non-

voting member on the creditors committee, and will be

invited to all meetings. The voting of the creditors

committee will be by majority, where the majority requires

more than 75 percent of the vote by weight.

xxx xxx xxx

No prescriptions on solutions to resolve the

insolvency

The choice of the solution to keep the entity as a going

concern will be voted on by the creditors committee. There

are no constraints on the proposals that the Resolution

Professional can present to the creditors committee. Other

than the majority vote of the creditors committee, the

Resolution Professional needs to confirm to the Adjudicator

that the final solution complies with three additional

requirements. The first is that the solution must explicitly

require the repayment of any interim finance and costs of

the insolvency resolution process will be paid in priority to

other payments. Secondly, the plan must explicitly include

payment to all creditors not on the creditors committee,

within a reasonable period after the solution is

implemented. Lastly, the plan should comply with existing

laws governing the actions of the entity while implementing

the solutions.

xxx xxx xxx

5.3.1 Steps at the start of the IRP

50

4. Creation of the creditors committee

The creditors committee will have the power to decide the

final solution by majority vote in the negotiations. The

majority vote requires more than or equal to 75 percent of

the creditors committee by weight of the total financial

liabilities. The majority vote will also involve a cram down

option on any dissenting creditors once the majority vote is

obtained…The Committee deliberated on who should be

on the creditors committee, given the power of the creditors

committee to ultimately keep the entity as a going concern

or liquidate it. The Committee reasoned that members of

the creditors committee have to be creditors both with the

capability to assess viability, as well as to be willing to

modify terms of existing liabilities in negotiations. Typically,

operational creditors are neither able to decide on matters

regarding the insolvency of the entity, nor willing to take the

risk of postponing payments for better future prospects for

the entity. The Committee concluded that, for the process

to be rapid and efficient, the Code will provide that the

creditors committee should be restricted to only the

financial creditors.

5.3.3 Obtaining the resolution to insolvency in the IRP

The Committee is of the opinion that there should be

freedom permitted to the overall market to propose

solutions on keeping the entity as a going concern. Since

the manner and the type of possible solutions are specific

to the time and environment in which the insolvency

becomes visible, it is expected to evolve over time, and

with the development of the market. The Code will be open

to all forms of solutions for keeping the entity going without

prejudice, within the rest of the constraints of the IRP.

Therefore, how the insolvency is to be resolved will not be

prescribed in the Code. There will be no restriction in the

Code on possible ways in which the business model of the

entity, or its financial model, or both, can be changed so as

to keep the entity as a going concern. The Code will not

state that the entity is to be revived, or the debt is to be

restructured, or the entity is to be liquidated. This decision

will come from the deliberations of the creditors committee

in response to the solutions proposed by the market.”

(emphasis supplied)

51

34.The aforesaid extracts follow what is stated in the UNCITRAL

Legislative Guide which prescribes as follows:

“2. Nature or form of a plan

3. The purpose of reorganization is to maximize the

possible eventual return to creditors, providing a better

result than if the debtor were to be liquidated and to

preserve viable businesses as a means of preserving jobs

for employees and trade for suppliers. With different

constituents involved in reorganization proceedings, each

may have different views of how the various objectives can

best be achieved. Some creditors, such as major

customers or suppliers, may prefer continued business with

the debtor to rapid repayment of their debt. Some creditors

may favour taking an equity stake in the business, while

others will not. Typically, therefore, there is a range of

options from which to select in a given case. If an

insolvency law adopts a prescriptive approach to the

range of options available or to the choice to be made

in a particular case, it is likely to be too constrictive. It

is desirable that the law not restrict reorganization plans to

those designed only to fully rehabilitate the debtor; prohibit

debt from being written off; restrict the amount that must

eventually be paid to creditors by specifying a minimum

percentage; or prohibit exchange of debt for equity. A non-

intrusive approach that does not prescribe such

limitations is likely to provide sufficient flexibility to

allow the most suitable of a range of possibilities to be

chosen for a particular debtor.

xxx xxx xxx

20. Rather than specifying a wide range of detailed

information to be included in a plan, it may be

desirable for the insolvency law to identify the

minimum content of a plan, focusing upon the key

objectives of the plan and procedures for

implementation. For example, the insolvency law may

require the plan to detail the classes of creditors and the

treatment each is to be accorded in the plan; the terms and

conditions of the plan (such as treatment of contracts and

the ongoing role of the debtor); and what is required for

52

implementation of the plan (such as sale of assets or parts

of the business, extension of maturity dates, changes to

capital structure of the business and supervision of

implementation).”

(emphasis supplied)

35.Section 24 of the Code deals with meetings of the Committee of

Creditors. Though voting on the approval of a resolution plan is only

with the financial creditors who form the Committee of Creditors, yet

the resolution professional is to conduct the aforesaid meeting at

which members of the suspended board of directors may be present,

together with one representative of operational creditors, provided

that the aggregate dues owed to all operational creditors is not less

than 10% of the entire debt owed – see Sections 24(2),(3) and (4) of

the Code. Voting shall be in accordance with the voting share

assigned to each financial creditor, which is based on the financial

debts owed to such creditors – see Section 24(6) of the Code.

36.Even though it is the resolution professional who is to run the

business of the corporate debtor as a going concern during the

intermediate period, yet, such resolution professional cannot take

certain decisions relating to management of the corporate debtor

without the prior approval of at least 66% of the votes of the

Committee of Creditors. Section 28 of the Code is important and is

set out hereinbelow:

53

“28. Approval of committee of creditors for certain

actions

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for

the time being in force, the resolution professional, during

the corporate insolvency resolution process, shall not take

any of the following actions without the prior approval of the

committee of creditors namely:—

(a) raise any interim finance in excess of the amount as

may be decided by the committee of creditors in their

meeting;

(b) create any security interest over the assets of the

corporate debtor;

(c) change the capital structure of the corporate debtor,

including by way of issuance of additional securities,

creating a new class of securities or buying back or

redemption of issued securities in case the corporate

debtor is a company;

(d) record any change in the ownership interest of the

corporate debtor;

(e) give instructions to financial institutions maintaining

accounts of the corporate debtor for a debit transaction

from any such accounts in excess of the amount as may be

decided by the committee of creditors in their meeting;

(f) undertake any related party transaction;

(g) amend any constitutional documents of the corporate

debtor;

(h) delegate its authority to any other person;

(i) dispose of or permit the disposal of shares of any

shareholder of the corporate debtor or their nominees to

third parties;

(j) make any change in the management of the corporate

debtor or its subsidiary;

(k) transfer rights or financial debts or operational debts

under material contracts otherwise than in the ordinary

course of business;

54

(l) make changes in the appointment or terms of contract of

such personnel as specified by the committee of creditors;

or

(m) make changes in the appointment or terms of contract

of statutory auditors or internal auditors of the corporate

debtor

(2) The resolution professional shall convene a meeting of

the committee of creditors and seek the vote of the

creditors prior to taking any of the actions under sub-

section (1).

(3) No action under sub-section (1) shall be approved by

the committee of creditors unless approved by a vote of

sixty-six per cent of the voting shares.

(4) Where any action under sub-section (1) is taken by the

resolution professional without seeking the approval of the

committee of creditors in the manner as required in this

section, such action shall be void.

(5) The committee of creditors may report the actions of the

resolution professional under sub-section (4) to the Board

for taking necessary actions against him under this Code.”

Thus, it is clear that since corporate resolution is ultimately in the

hands of the majority vote of the Committee of Creditors, nothing can

be done qua the management of the corporate debtor by the

resolution professional which impacts major decisions to be made in

the interregnum between the taking over of management of the

corporate debtor and corporate resolution by the acceptance of a

resolution plan by the requisite majority of the Committee of

Creditors. Most importantly, under Section 30(4), the Committee of

Creditors may approve a resolution plan by a vote of not less than

66% of the voting share of the financial creditors, after considering its

55

feasibility and viability, and various other requirements as may be

prescribed by the Regulations.

37.Regulation 18 to 26 of the 2016 Regulations deal with meetings

to be conducted by the Committee of Creditors. The quorum at the

meeting is fixed by Regulation 22, and the conduct of the meeting is

to take place as under Regulation 24. Voting takes place under

Regulation 25 and 26. Most importantly, Regulation 39(3) states:

“39. Approval of resolution plan

xxx xxx xxx

(3) The committee shall evaluate the resolution plans

received under sub-regulation (1) strictly as per the

evaluation matrix to identify the best resolution plan and

may approve it with such modifications as it deems fit

Provided that the committee may approve any resolution

plan with such modifications as it deems fit.”

38.This Regulation fleshes out Section 30(4) of the Code, making it

clear that ultimately it is the commercial wisdom of the Committee of

Creditors which operates to approve what is deemed by a majority of

such creditors to be the best resolution plan, which is finally accepted

after negotiation of its terms by such Committee with prospective

resolution applicants.

39.In K. Sashidhar (supra), the role of the Committee of Creditors

in the corporate resolution process was laid down by this Court thus:

“20. The CoC is constituted as per Section 21 of the I&B

Code, which consists of financial creditors. The term

56

‘financial creditor’ has been defined in Section 5(7) of the

I&B Code to mean any person to whom a financial debt is

owed and includes a person to whom such debt has been

legally assigned or transferred to. Be it noted that the

process of insolvency resolution and liquidation concerning

corporate debtors has been codified in Part II of the I&B

Code, comprising of seven Chapters. Chapter I predicates

that Part II shall apply in matters relating to the insolvency

and liquidation of corporate debtor where the minimum

amount of default is Rs. 1,00,000/-. Section 5 in Chapter I

is a dictionary clause specific to Part II of the Code.

Chapter II deals with the gamut of procedure to be followed

for the corporate insolvency resolution process. For dealing

with the issue on hand, the provisions contained in Chapter

II will be significant. From the scheme of the provisions, it is

clear that the provisions in Part II of the Code are self-

contained code, providing for the procedure for

consideration of the resolution plan by the CoC.

21. The stage at which the dispute concerning the

respective corporate debtors (KS&PIPL and IIL) had

reached the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is ascribable to

Section 30(4) of the I&B Code, which, at the relevant time

in October 2017, read thus:

“30(4)- The committee of creditors may approve a

resolution plan by a vote of not less than seventy five per

cent of voting share of the financial creditors.”

22. If the CoC had approved the resolution plan by

requisite percent of voting share, then as per Section 30(6)

of the I&B Code, it is imperative for the resolution

professional to submit the same to the adjudicating

authority (NCLT). On receipt of such a proposal, the

adjudicating authority (NCLT) is required to satisfy itself

that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the

requirements specified in Section 30(2). No more and no

less. This is explicitly spelt out in Section 31 of the I&B

Code, which read thus (as in October 2017):

57

“31. Approval of resolution plan.-(1) If the Adjudicating

Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved

by the committee of creditors under sub-section (4) of

section 30 meets the requirements as referred to in sub-

section(2) of section 30, it shall by order approve the

resolution plan which shall be binding on the corporate

debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors

and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan.

(2) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the

resolution plan does not confirm to the requirements

referred to in sub-section (1), it may, by an order, reject the

resolution plan.

(3) After the order of approval under sub-section (1),-

(a) the moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating

Authority under section 14 shall cease to have effect; and

(b) the resolution professional shall forward all records

relating to the conduct of the corporate insolvency

resolution process and the resolution plan to the Board to

be recorded on its database.”

xxx xxx xxx

39. As aforesaid, upon receipt of a “rejected” resolution

plan the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is not expected to do

anything more; but is obligated to initiate liquidation

process under Section 33(1) of the I&B Code. The

legislature has not endowed the adjudicating authority

(NCLT) with the jurisdiction or authority to analyse or

evaluate the commercial decision of the CoC muchless to

enquire into the justness of the rejection of the resolution

plan by the dissenting financial creditors. From the

legislative history and the background in which the I&B

Code has been enacted, it is noticed that a completely new

approach has been adopted for speeding up the recovery

of the debt due from the defaulting companies. In the new

approach, there is a calm period followed by a swift

resolution process to be completed within 270 days (outer

limit) failing which, initiation of liquidation process has been

made inevitable and mandatory. In the earlier regime, the

58

corporate debtor could indefinitely continue to enjoy the

protection given under Section 22 of Sick Industrial

Companies Act, 1985 or under other such enactments

which has now been forsaken. Besides, the commercial

wisdom of the CoC has been given paramount status

without any judicial intervention, for ensuring completion of

the stated processes within the timelines prescribed by the

I&B Code. There is an intrinsic assumption that financial

creditors are fully informed about the viability of the

corporate debtor and feasibility of the proposed resolution

plan. They act on the basis of thorough examination of the

proposed resolution plan and assessment made by their

team of experts. The opinion on the subject matter

expressed by them after due deliberations in the CoC

meetings through voting, as per voting shares, is a

collective business decision. The legislature, consciously,

has not provided any ground to challenge the “commercial

wisdom” of the individual financial creditors or their

collective decision before the adjudicating authority. That is

made nonjusticiable.”

40.The importance of the majority decision of the Committee of

Creditors is then stated in Section 31(1) of the Code which is set out

as follows:

“31. Approval of resolution plan

(1)If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the

resolution plan as approved by the committee of

creditors under sub-section (4) of section 30 meets the

requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of section

30, it shall by order approve the resolution plan which

shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its

employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other

stakeholders involved in the resolution plan.”

Thus, what is left to the majority decision of the Committee of

Creditors is the “feasibility and viability” of a resolution plan, which

59

obviously takes into account all aspects of the plan, including the

manner of distribution of funds among the various classes of

creditors. As an example, take the case of a resolution plan which

does not provide for payment of electricity dues. It is certainly open to

the Committee of Creditors to suggest a modification to the

prospective resolution applicant to the effect that such dues ought to

be paid in full, so that the carrying on of the business of the corporate

debtor does not become impossible for want of a most basic and

essential element for the carrying on of such business, namely,

electricity. This may, in turn, be accepted by the resolution applicant

with a consequent modification as to distribution of funds, payment

being provided to a certain type of operational creditor, namely, the

electricity distribution company, out of upfront payment offered by the

proposed resolution applicant which may also result in a consequent

reduction of amounts payable to other financial and operational

creditors. What is important is that it is the commercial wisdom of this

majority of creditors which is to determine, through negotiation with

the prospective resolution applicant, as to how and in what manner

the corporate resolution process is to take place.

Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate

Tribunal

60

41.As has already been seen hereinabove, it is the Adjudicating

Authority which first admits an application by a financial or operational

creditor, or by the corporate debtor itself under Section 7, 9 and 10 of

the Code. Once this is done, within the parameters fixed by the Code,

and as expounded upon by our judgments in Innoventive Industries

Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407 and Macquarie Bank Ltd v.

Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. (2018) 2 SCC 674, the Adjudicating

Authority then appoints an interim resolution professional who takes

administrative decisions as to the day to day running of the corporate

debtor; collation of claims and their admissions; and the calling for

resolution plans in the manner stated above. After a resolution plan is

approved by the requisite majority of the Committee of Creditors, the

aforesaid plan must then pass muster of the Adjudicating Authority

under Section 31(1) of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority’s

jurisdiction is circumscribed by Section 30(2) of the Code. In this

context, the decision of this court in K. Sashidhar (supra) is of great

relevance.

42.In K. Sashidhar (supra) this Court was called upon to decide

upon the scope of judicial review by the Adjudicating Authority. This

Court set out the questions to be determined as follows:

“18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the moot

question is about the sequel of the approval of the

61

resolution plan by the CoC of the respective corporate

debtor, namely KS&PIPL and IIL, by a vote of less than

seventy five percent of voting share of the financial

creditors; and about the correctness of the view taken by

the NCLAT that the percentage of voting share of the

financial creditors specified in Section 30(4) of the I&B

Code is mandatory. Further, is it open to the adjudicating

authority/appellate authority to reckon any other factor

(other than specified in Sections 30(2) or 61(3) of the I&B

Code as the case may be) which, according to the

resolution applicant and the stakeholders supporting the

resolution plan, may be relevant?

xxx xxx xxx

25. The Court, however, was not called upon to deal with

the specific issue that is being considered in the present

cases namely, the scope of judicial review by the

adjudicatory authority in relation to the opinion expressed

by the CoC on the proposal for approval of the resolution

plan.”

After adverting to the 2016 Regulations, the Court set out the

jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate

Tribunal as follows:

“42. Whereas, the discretion of the adjudicating authority

(NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of

the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent

of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry,

the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject

the resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in

Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform

to the stated requirements. Reverting to Section 30(2), the

enquiry to be done is in respect of whether the resolution

plan provides: (i) the payment of insolvency resolution

process costs in a specified manner in priority to the

repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor, (ii) the

repayment of the debts of operational creditors in

62

prescribed manner, (iii) the management of the affairs of

the corporate debtor, (iv) the implementation and

supervision of the resolution plan, (v) does not contravene

any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force,

(vi) conforms to such other requirements as may be

specified by the Board. The Board referred to is established

under Section 188 of the I&B Code. The powers and

functions of the Board have been delineated in Section 196

of the I&B Code. None of the specified functions of the

Board, directly or indirectly, pertain to regulating the

manner in which the financial creditors ought to or ought

not to exercise their commercial wisdom during the voting

on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code.

The subjective satisfaction of the financial creditors at the

time of voting is bound to be a mixed baggage of variety of

factors. To wit, the feasibility and viability of the proposed

resolution plan and including their perceptions about the

general capability of the resolution applicant to translate

the projected plan into a reality. The resolution applicant

may have given projections backed by normative data but

still in the opinion of the dissenting financial creditors, it

would not be free from being speculative. These aspects

are completely within the domain of the financial creditors

who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under

Section 30(4) of the I&B Code.

43. For the same reason, even the jurisdiction of the

NCLAT being in continuation of the proceedings would be

circumscribed in that regard and more particularly on

account of Section 32 of the I&B Code, which envisages

that any appeal from an order approving the resolution plan

shall be in the manner and on the grounds specified in

Section 61(3) of the I&B Code. Section 61(3) of the I&B

Code reads thus:

“61. Appeals and Appellate Authority.-(1) Notwithstanding

anything to the contrary contained under the Companies

Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the

order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may

63

prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate

Tribunal.

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) An appeal against an order approving a resolution

plan under section 31 may be filed on the following

grounds, namely:—

(i) the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the

provisions of any law for the time being in force;

(ii) there has been material irregularity in exercise of the

powers by the resolution professional during the

corporate insolvency resolution period;

(iii) the debts owed to operational creditors of the

corporate debtor have not been provided for in the

resolution plan in the manner specified by the Board;

(iv) the insolvency resolution process costs have not

been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts;

or

(v) the resolution plan does not comply with any other

criteria specified by the Board.

xxxxxxxxx.”

44. On a bare reading of the provisions of the I&B Code, it

would appear that the remedy of appeal under Section

61(1) is against an “order passed by the adjudicating

authority (NCLT)” - which we will assume may also pertain

to recording of the fact that the proposed resolution plan

has been rejected or not approved by a vote of not less

than 75% of voting share of the financial creditors.

Indubitably, the remedy of appeal including the width of

jurisdiction of the appellate authority and the grounds of

appeal, is a creature of statute. The provisions investing

jurisdiction and authority in the NCLT or NCLAT as noticed

earlier, has not made the commercial decision exercised by

the CoC of not approving the resolution plan or rejecting

the same, justiciable. This position is reinforced from the

limited grounds specified for instituting an appeal that too

64

against an order “approving a resolution plan” under

Section 31. First, that the approved resolution plan is in

contravention of the provisions of any law for the time

being in force. Second, there has been material irregularity

in exercise of powers “by the resolution professional”

during the corporate insolvency resolution period. Third, the

debts owed to operational creditors have not been provided

for in the resolution plan in the prescribed manner. Fourth,

the insolvency resolution plan costs have not been

provided for repayment in priority to all other debts. Fifth,

the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria

specified by the Board. Significantly, the matters or grounds

- be it under Section 30(2) or under Section 61(3) of the

I&B Code - are regarding testing the validity of the

“approved” resolution plan by the CoC; and not for

approving the resolution plan which has been disapproved

or deemed to have been rejected by the CoC in exercise of

its business decision.

45. Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be

limited to the power exercisable by the resolution

professional under Section 30(2) of the I&B Code or, at

best, by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) under Section

31(2) read with 31(1) of the I&B Code. No other inquiry

would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction bestowed

upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly

circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation

to the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the I&B Code,

which is limited to matters “other than” enquiry into the

autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial

creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT)

have been endowed with limited jurisdiction as specified in

the I&B Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise

plenary powers.

46. In our view, neither the adjudicating authority (NCLT)

nor the appellate authority (NCLAT) has been endowed

with the jurisdiction to reverse the commercial wisdom of

the dissenting financial creditors and that too on the

specious ground that it is only an opinion of the minority

65

financial creditors. The fact that substantial or majority

percent of financial creditors have accorded approval to the

resolution plan would be of no avail, unless the approval is

by a vote of not less than 75% (after amendment of 2018

w.e.f. 06.06.2018, 66%) of voting share of the financial

creditors. To put it differently, the action of liquidation

process postulated in Chapter-III of the I&B Code, is

avoidable, only if approval of the resolution plan is by a

vote of not less than 75% (as in October, 2017) of voting

share of the financial creditors. Conversely, the legislative

intent is to uphold the opinion or hypothesis of the minority

dissenting financial creditors. That must prevail, if it is not

less than the specified percent (25% in October, 2017; and

now after the amendment w.e.f. 06.06.2018, 44%). The

inevitable outcome of voting by not less than requisite

percent of voting share of financial creditors to disapprove

the proposed resolution plan, de jure, entails in its deemed

rejection.

xxx xxx xxx

49. The argument, though attractive at the first blush, but if

accepted, would require us to re-write the provisions of the

I&B Code. It would also result in doing violence to the

legislative intent of having consciously not stipulated that

as a ground - to challenge the commercial wisdom of the

minority (dissenting) financial creditors. Concededly, the

process of resolution plan is necessitated in respect of

corporate debtors in whom their financial creditors have

lost hope of recovery and who have turned into non-

performer or a chronic defaulter. The fact that the

concerned corporate debtor was still able to carry on its

business activities does not obligate the financial creditors

to postpone the recovery of the debt due or to prolong their

losses indefinitely. Be that as it may, the scope of enquiry

and the grounds on which the decision of “approval” of the

resolution plan by the CoC can be interfered with by the

adjudicating authority (NCLT), has been set out in Section

31(1) read with Section 30(2) and by the appellate tribunal

(NCLAT) under Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the

66

I&B Code. No corresponding provision has been envisaged

by the legislature to empower the resolution professional,

the adjudicating authority (NCLT) or for that matter the

appellate authority (NCLAT), to reverse the “commercial

decision” of the CoC muchless of the dissenting financial

creditors for not supporting the proposed resolution plan.

Whereas, from the legislative history there is contra

indication that the commercial or business decisions of the

financial creditors are not open to any judicial review by the

adjudicating authority or the appellate authority.

51. Suffice it to observe that in the I&B Code and the

regulations framed thereunder as applicable in October

2017, there was no need for the dissenting financial

creditors to record reasons for disapproving or rejecting a

resolution plan. Further, as aforementioned, there is no

provision in the I&B Code which empowers the adjudicating

authority (NCLT) to oversee the justness of the approach of

the dissenting financial creditors in rejecting the proposed

resolution plan or to engage in judicial review thereof.

Concededly, the inquiry by the resolution professional

precedes the consideration of the resolution plan by the

CoC. The resolution professional is not required to express

his opinion on matters within the domain of the financial

creditor(s), to approve or reject the resolution plan, under

Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. At best, the Adjudicating

Authority (NCLT) may cause an enquiry into the “approved”

resolution plan on limited grounds referred to in Section

30(2) read with Section 31(1) of the I&B Code. It cannot

make any other inquiry nor is competent to issue any

direction in relation to the exercise of commercial wisdom

of the financial creditors - be it for approving, rejecting or

abstaining, as the case may be. Even the inquiry before the

Appellate Authority (NCLAT) is limited to the grounds under

Section 61(3) of the I&B Code. It does not postulate

jurisdiction to undertake scrutiny of the justness of the

opinion expressed by financial creditors at the time of

voting. To take any other view would enable even the

minority dissenting financial creditors to question the logic

or justness of the commercial opinion expressed by the

67

majority of the financial creditors albeit by requisite percent

of voting share to approve the resolution plan; and in the

process authorize the adjudicating authority to reject the

approved resolution plan upon accepting such a challenge.

That is not the scope of jurisdiction vested in the

adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the I&B Code

dealing with approval of the resolution plan.”

Thus, it is clear that the limited judicial review available, which can in

no circumstance trespass upon a business decision of the majority of

the Committee of Creditors, has to be within the four corners of

Section 30(2) of the Code, insofar as the Adjudicating Authority is

concerned, and Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the Code,

insofar as the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, the parameters of

such review having been clearly laid down in K. Sashidhar (supra).

43.However, Shri Sibal exhorted us to hold that K. Sashidhar

(supra) missed a very vital provision of the Code which is contained

in Section 60(5) of the Code. Section 60(5) reads as follows:

“60. Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons

xxx xxx xxx

(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in

any other law for the time being in force, the National

Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain

or dispose of—

(a) any application or proceeding by or against the

corporate debtor or corporate person;

(b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or

corporate person, including claims by or against any of its

subsidiaries situated in India; and

68

(c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts,

arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or

liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate

person under this Code.”

It will be noticed that the non-obstante clause of Section 60(5) speaks

of any other law for the time being in force, which obviously cannot

include the provisions of the Code itself. Secondly, Section 60(5)(c) is

in the nature of a residuary jurisdiction vested in the NCLT so that the

NCLT may decide all questions of law or fact arising out of or in

relation to insolvency resolution or liquidation under the Code. Such

residual jurisdiction does not in any manner impact Section 30(2) of

the Code which circumscribes the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating

Authority when it comes to the confirmation of a resolution plan, as

has been mandated by Section 31(1) of the Code. A harmonious

reading, therefore, of Section 31(1) and Section 60(5) of the Code

would lead to the result that the residual jurisdiction of the NCLT

under Section 60(5)(c) cannot, in any manner, whittle down Section

31(1) of the Code, by the investment of some discretionary or equity

jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority outside Section 30(2) of the

Code, when it comes to a resolution plan being adjudicated upon by

the Adjudicating Authority. This argument also must needs be

rejected.

69

44.The minimum value that is required to be paid to operational

creditors under a resolution plan is set out under Section 30(2)(b) of

the Code as being the amount to be paid to such creditors in the

event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor under Section 53. The

Insolvency Committee constituted by the Government in 2018 was

tasked with studying the major issues that arise in the working of the

Code and to recommend changes, if any, required to be made to the

Code. The Insolvency Committee Report, 2018 (hereinafter referred

to as “The Committee Report, 2018”), inter alia, deliberated upon the

objections to Section 30(2)(b) of the Code, inasmuch as it provided

for a minimum payment of a “liquidation value” to the operational

creditors and nothing more, and concluded as follows:

“18. VALUE GUARANTEED TO OPERATIONAL

CREDITORS UNDER A RESOLUTION PLAN

18.1 Section 30(2)(b) of the Code requires the RP to

ensure that every resolution plan provides for payment of

at least the liquidation value to all operational creditors.

Regulation 38(1)(b) of the CIRP Regulations provides that

liquidation value must be paid to operational creditors prior

in time to all financial creditors and within thirty days of

approval of resolution plan by the NCLT. The BLRC Report

states that the guarantee of liquidation value has been

provided to operational creditors since they are not allowed

to be part of the CoC which determines the fate of the

corporate debtor. (BLRC Report, 2015)

18.2 However, certain public comments received by the

Committee stated that, in practice, the liquidation value

which is guaranteed to the operational creditors may be

negligible as they fall under the residual category of

70

creditors under section 53 of the Code. Particularly, in the

case of unsecured operational creditors, it was argued that

they will have no incentive to continue supplying goods or

services to the corporate debtor for it to remain a ‘going

concern’ given that their chances of recovery are abysmally

low.

18.3 The Committee deliberated on the status of

operational creditors and their role in the CIRP. It

considered the viability of using ‘fair value’ as the floor to

determine the value to be given to operational creditors.

Fair value is defined under regulation 2(1)(hb) of the CIRP

Regulations to mean “the estimated realizable value of the

assets of the corporate debtor, if they were to be

exchanged on the insolvency commencement date

between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s

length transaction, after proper marketing and where the

parties had acted knowledgeably, prudently and without

compulsion.” However, it was felt that assessment and

payment of the fair value upfront, may be difficult. The

Committee also discussed the possibility of using

'resolution value' or 'bid value' as the floor to be guaranteed

to operational creditors but neither of these were deemed

suitable.

18.4 It was stated to the Committee that liquidation value

has been provided as a floor and in practice, many

operational creditors may get payments above this value.

The Committee appreciated the need to protect interests of

operational creditors and particularly Micro, Small and

Medium Enterprises (“MSMEs”). In this regard, the

Committee observed that in practice most of the

operational creditors that are critical to the business of the

corporate debtor are paid out as part of the resolution plan

as they have the power to choke the corporate debtor by

cutting off supplies. Illustratively, in the case of Synergies-

Dooray Automative Ltd. (Company Appeal No. 123/2017,

NCLT Hyderabad, Date of decision – 02 August, 2017), the

original resolution plan provided for payment to operational

creditors above the liquidation value but contemplated that

it would be made in a staggered manner after payment to

financial creditors, easing the burden of the 30-day

mandate provided under regulation 38 of the CIRP

Regulations. However, the same was modified by the NCLT

71

and operational creditors were required to be paid prior in

time, due to the quantum of debt and nature of the

creditors. Similarly, the approved resolution plan in the

case of Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. (Company Appeal No.

37/2017, NCLT Principal Bench, Date of decision – 13

December, 2017) provided for payment of all existing dues

of the operational creditors without any write-off. The

Committee felt that the interests of operational creditors

must be protected, not by tinkering with what minimum

must be guaranteed to them statutorily, but by improving

the quality of resolution plans overall. This could be

achieved by dedicated efforts of regulatory bodies including

the IBBI and Indian Banks' Association.

18.5 Finally, the Committee agreed that presently, most of

the resolution plans are in the process of submission and

there is no empirical evidence to further the argument that

operational creditors do not receive a fair share in the

resolution process under the current scheme of the Code.

Hence, the Committee decided to continue with the present

arrangement without making any amendments to the

Code.”

(emphasis supplied)

Ultimately, the Committee decided against any amendment to be

made to the existing scheme of the Code, thereby retaining the

prescription as to the minimum value that was to be paid to the

operational creditors under a resolution plan.

45.However, as has been correctly argued on behalf of the

operational creditors, the preamble of the Code does speak of

maximisation of the value of assets of corporate debtors and the

balancing of the interests of all stakeholders. There is no doubt that a

key objective of the Code is to ensure that the corporate debtor keeps

operating as a going concern during the insolvency resolution

72

process and must therefore make past and present payments to

various operational creditors without which such operation as a going

concern would become impossible. Sections 5(26), 14(2), 20(1),

20(2)(d) and (e) of the Code read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the

2016 Regulations all speak of the corporate debtor running as a

going concern during the insolvency resolution process. Workmen

need to be paid, electricity dues need to be paid, purchase of raw

materials need to be made, etc. This is in fact reflected in this court’s

judgment in Swiss Ribbons (supra) as follows:

“26. The Preamble of the Code states as follows:

“An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to

reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate

persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time-bound

manner for maximisation of value of assets of such

persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit

and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including

alteration in the order of priority of payment of government

dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board

of India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental

thereto.”

27. As is discernible, the Preamble gives an insight into

what is sought to be achieved by the Code. The Code is

first and foremost, a Code for reorganisation and

insolvency resolution of corporate debtors. Unless such

reorganisation is effected in a time-bound manner, the

value of the assets of such persons will deplete. Therefore,

maximisation of value of the assets of such persons so that

they are efficiently run as going concerns is another very

important objective of the Code. This, in turn, will promote

entrepreneurship as the persons in management of the

corporate debtor are removed and replaced by

73

entrepreneurs. When, therefore, a resolution plan takes off

and the corporate debtor is brought back into the economic

mainstream, it is able to repay its debts, which, in turn,

enhances the viability of credit in the hands of banks and

financial institutions. Above all, ultimately, the interests of

all stakeholders are looked after as the corporate debtor

itself becomes a beneficiary of the resolution scheme—

workers are paid, the creditors in the long run will be repaid

in full, and shareholders/investors are able to maximise

their investment. Timely resolution of a corporate debtor

who is in the red, by an effective legal framework, would go

a long way to support the development of credit markets.

Since more investment can be made with funds that have

come back into the economy, business then eases up,

which leads, overall, to higher economic growth and

development of the Indian economy. What is interesting to

note is that the Preamble does not, in any manner, refer to

liquidation, which is only availed of as a last resort if there

is either no resolution plan or the resolution plans

submitted are not up to the mark. Even in liquidation, the

liquidator can sell the business of the corporate debtor as a

going concern. (See ArcelorMittal [ArcelorMittal (India) (P)

Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2019) 2 SCC 1] at para 83, fn

3).”

(emphasis supplied)

46.This is the reason why Regulation 38(1A) speaks of a resolution

plan including a statement as to how it has dealt with the interests of

all stakeholders, including operational creditors of the corporate

debtor. Regulation 38(1) also states that the amount due to

operational creditors under a resolution plan shall be given priority in

payment over financial creditors. If nothing is to be paid to operational

creditors, the minimum, being liquidation value - which in most cases

74

would amount to nil after secured creditors have been paid - would

certainly not balance the interest of all stakeholders or maximise the

value of assets of a corporate debtor if it becomes impossible to

continue running its business as a going concern. Thus, it is clear that

when the Committee of Creditors exercises its commercial wisdom to

arrive at a business decision to revive the corporate debtor, it must

necessarily take into account these key features of the Code before it

arrives at a commercial decision to pay off the dues of financial and

operational creditors. There is no doubt whatsoever that the ultimate

discretion of what to pay and how much to pay each class or sub-

class of creditors is with the Committee of Creditors, but, the decision

of such Committee must reflect the fact that it has taken into account

maximising the value of the assets of the corporate debtor and the

fact that it has adequately balanced the interests of all stakeholders

including operational creditors. This being the case, judicial review of

the Adjudicating Authority that the resolution plan as approved by the

Committee of Creditors has met the requirements referred to in

Section 30(2) would include judicial review that is mentioned in

Section 30(2)(e), as the provisions of the Code are also provisions of

law for the time being in force. Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority

cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the

Committee of Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see

75

that the Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that

the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during

the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value

of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including

operational creditors has been taken care of. If the Adjudicating

Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters

have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back to the

Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the

aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of

Creditors while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by

the Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is

satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these

key features, it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being

equal.

Secured and unsecured creditors; the equality principle

47.The impugned NCLAT judgment has applied an equality

principle down the board stating that whether creditors are secured or

unsecured, financial or operational, equitable treatment demands that

they all be treated as one group of creditors similarly situate, as a

result of which no differences can be made in terms of the amount of

debt to be repaid to them based on whether they are secured or

76

unsecured, and whether they are financial or operational creditors.

The aforesaid judgment relies upon certain paragraphs of this Court’s

judgment in Swiss Ribbons (supra) to buttress the aforesaid finding.

48.The UNCITRAL Legislative Guide states:-

“Designing the key objectives and structure of an

effective and efficient insolvency law

xxx xxx xxx

4. Ensuring equitable treatment of similarly situated

creditors

7. The objective of equitable treatment is based on the

notion that, in collective proceedings, creditors with similar

legal rights should be treated fairly, receiving a distribution

on their claim in accordance with their relative ranking and

interests. This key objective recognizes that all creditors do

not need to be treated identically, but in a manner that

reflects the different bargains they have struck with the

debtor. This is less relevant as a defining factor where

there is no specific debt contract with the debtor, such as in

the case of damage claimants (e.g. for environmental

damage) and tax authorities. Even though the principle of

equitable treatment may be modified by social policy on

priorities and give way to the prerogatives pertaining to

holders of claims or interests that arise, for example, by

operation of law, it retains its significance by ensuring that

the priority accorded to the claims of a similar class affects

all members of the class in the same manner. The policy of

equitable treatment permeates many aspects of an

insolvency law, including the application of the stay or

suspension, provisions to set aside acts and transactions

and recapture value for the insolvency estate, classification

of claims, voting procedures in reorganization and

distribution mechanisms. An insolvency law should address

problems of fraud and favouritism that may arise in cases

of financial distress by providing, for example, that acts and

77

transactions detrimental to equitable treatment of creditors

can be avoided.

xxx xxx xxx

5. Approval of a plan

xxx xxx xxx

(i) Classification of claims

27. The primary purpose of classifying claims is to satisfy

the requirements to provide fair and equitable treatment to

creditors, treating similarly situated claims in the same

manner and ensuring that all creditors in a particular class

are offered the same menu of terms by the reorganization

plan. It is one way to ensure that priority claims are treated

in accordance with the priority established under the

insolvency law. It may also make it easier to treat the

claims of major creditors who can be persuaded to receive

different treatment from the general class of unsecured

creditors, where that treatment may be necessary to make

the plan feasible. Classification can, however, increase the

complexity and costs of the insolvency proceedings,

depending upon how many different classes are identified.

An alternative, to ensure that creditors who should receive

special treatment are not oppressed by the majority, may

be to give those groups the opportunity to challenge the

decision of the majority in court if they have not been

treated in a fair and equitable manner. The fact that such a

facility exists may operate to discourage majorities from

making proposals that would unfairly disadvantage priority

creditors.

(ii) Treatment of dissenting creditors

28. As to the treatment of dissenting creditors, it will be

essential to provide a way of imposing a plan agreed by the

majority of a class upon the dissenting minority in order to

increase the chances of success of the reorganization. It

may also be necessary, depending upon the mechanism

that is chosen for voting on the plan and whether creditors

vote in classes, to consider whether the plan can be made

binding upon dissenting classes of creditors and other

affected parties.

78

29. To the extent that a plan can be approved and enforced

upon dissenting parties, there will be a need to ensure that

the content of the plan provides appropriate protection for

those dissenting parties and, in particular, that their rights

are not unfairly affected. The law might provide, for

example, that dissenting creditors can not be bound unless

assured of certain treatment. As a general principle, that

treatment might be that the creditors will receive at least as

much under the plan as they would have received in

liquidation proceedings. If the creditors are secured, the

treatment required may be that the creditor receives

payment of the value of its security interest, while in the

case of unsecured creditors it may be that any junior

interests, including equity holders, receive nothing. To the

extent that the approval procedure results in a significant

impairment of the claims of creditors and other affected

parties without their consent (in particular secured

creditors), there is a risk that creditors will be unwilling to

provide credit in the future. The mechanism for approval of

the plan, and the availability of appropriate safeguards, is

therefore of considerable importance to the protection of

these interests.

xxx xxx xxx

(c) Approval by secured and priority creditors

(i) The need for secured and priority creditors to vote

34. In many cases of insolvency, secured claims will

represent a significant portion of the value of the debt owed

by the debtor. Different approaches can be taken to

approval of the plan by secured and priority creditors. As a

general principle, however, the extent to which a secured

creditor is entitled to vote will depend upon the manner in

which the insolvency regime treats secured creditors, the

extent to which a reorganization plan can affect the security

interest of the secured creditor and the extent to which the

value of encumbered assets will satisfy the secured

creditor’s claim.

35. Under one approach, where the insolvency law does

not affect secured creditors and, in particular, does not

preclude them from enforcing their rights against the

encumbered assets, there is no need to give these

79

creditors the right to vote since their security interests will

not be affected by the plan. Priority creditors are in a similar

position under this approach—the plan cannot impair the

value of their claims and they are entitled to receive full

payment before creditors without priority are paid. The

limitation of this approach, however, is that it may reduce

the chances for a successful reorganization where the

encumbered assets or modification of the rights of such

creditors are key to the success of the plan. If the secured

creditor is not bound by the plan, the election by the

secured creditor to enforce its rights, such as by

repossessing and selling the encumbered asset, may make

reorganization of the business impossible to implement.

Similarly, there may be circumstances where ensuring a

successful reorganization requires that priority creditors

receive less than the full value of their claims upon

approval of the plan. The prospects for reorganization may

improve if priority creditors will accept payment over time

and if secured creditors will acquiesce when the terms of

the secured debt are modified over time. If these creditors

are not included in the plan and entitled to vote on

proposals affecting their rights, modification of those rights

cannot be achieved.

(ii) Classes of secured and priority creditors

36. Recognizing the need for secured and priority creditors

to participate, a second approach provides for these

creditors to vote as classes separate from unsecured

creditors on a plan that would modify or affect the terms of

their claims, or to otherwise consent to be bound by the

plan. Adopting such an approach provides a minimum

safeguard for the adequate protection of these creditors

and recognizes that the respective rights and interests of

secured and priority creditors differ from those of

unsecured creditors. In many cases, however, the rights of

secured and priority creditors will differ from each other and

it may not be feasible to require all secured creditors or all

priority creditors to vote in a single class. In such cases,

some laws provide that each secured creditor with

separate rights to encumbered assets forms a class of its

own. Those laws also provide that, where secured creditors

do vote as a class (e.g. where there are multiple holders of

bonds that are secured by the same assets), the requisite

80

majority of a class of secured creditors would generally be

the same as that required for approval by unsecured

creditors, although there are examples of laws that require

different majorities depending upon the manner in which

secured creditors rights are to be affected by the plan (e.g.

one law provides that a three-quarter majority is required

where the maturity date is to be extended and a four-fifths

majority where the rights are to be otherwise impaired).

Similarly, each rank of priority claims would be a separate

class under those laws.

xxx xxx xxx

(iii) Where secured creditors are not fully secured

38. To the extent that the value of the encumbered asset

will not satisfy the full amount of the secured creditor’s

claim, a number of insolvency laws provide that those

secured creditors should vote with ordinary unsecured

creditors in respect of the unsatisfied portion of the claim.

This may raise difficult questions of valuation in order to

determine whether, and to what extent, a secured creditor

is in fact secured. For example, where three creditors hold

security interests over the same asset, the value of that

asset may only support the claim first in priority and part of

the second in priority. The second creditor therefore may

have a right to vote only in respect of the unsecured portion

of its claim, while the third creditor will be totally unsecured.

The valuation of the asset is therefore crucial to

determining the extent to which these secured creditors are

secured and whether or not they are entitled to vote as

unsecured creditors with respect to any portion of their

claim.

39. In determining which approach should be taken to this

issue, it will be important to assess the effect of the desired

approach upon the availability and cost of secured

financing and to provide as much certainty and

predictability as possible, balancing this against the

objectives of insolvency law and the benefits to an

economy of successful reorganization.”

(emphasis supplied)

81

The BLRC Report, 2015 is of great help in understanding what is

meant by respecting the rights of all creditors equally. Paragraph

3.4.2 of the said report states:

“3.4.2 Principles driving the design

The Committee chose the following principles to design the

new insolvency and bankruptcy resolution framework:

IV. The Code will ensure a collective process.

9. The law must ensure that all key stakeholders will

participate to collectively assess viability. The law must

ensure that all creditors who have the capability and the

willingness to restructure their liabilities must be part of the

negotiation process. The liabilities of all creditors who are

not part of the negotiation process must also be met in any

negotiated solution.

V. The Code will respect the rights of all creditors equally.

10. The law must be impartial to the type of creditor in

counting their weight in the vote on the final solution in

resolving insolvency.

VI. The Code must ensure that, when the negotiations fail

to establish viability, the outcome of bankruptcy must be

binding.

11. The law must order the liquidation of an enterprise

which has been found unviable. This outcome of the

negotiations should be protected against all appeals other

than for very exceptional cases.

VII. The Code must ensure clarity of priority, and that the

rights of all stakeholders are upheld in resolving

bankruptcy.

12. The law must clearly lay out the priority of distributions

in bankruptcy to all stakeholders. The priority must be

designed so as to incentivise all stakeholders to participate

in the cycle of building enterprises with confidence.

13. While the law must incentivise collective action in

resolving bankruptcy, there must be a greater flexibility to

allow individual action in resolution and recovery during

82

bankruptcy compared with the phase of insolvency

resolution.”

(emphasis supplied)

49.That equitable treatment of creditors is equitable treatment only

within the same class is echoed in American Jurisprudence, 2d,

Volume 9 (hereinafter referred to as “American Jurisprudence”) as

follows:

Ҥ 6. Distribution

Equality of distribution is the theme of a bankruptcy act and

a prime bankruptcy policy. The bankruptcy system is

designed to distribute an estate as equally as possible

among similarly situated creditors. Thus, creditors of equal

status must be treated equally and equitably.

One of the conditions placed upon the debtor’s use of the

Bankruptcy Code to obtain a fresh start is that the debtor

treat all creditors fairly.

The bankruptcy process is the process by which a res,

under the constructive possession of the bankruptcy court,

is administered for the purpose of allowing, disallowing,

organizing, and prioritizing claims of creditors in, to, and

upon the res. Although the central policy of the Bankruptcy

Code is equality of distribution among all creditors,

exceptions are made by granting priority to certain claims

and subordinating others. Pursuant to the central policy,

creditors of equal priority should receive a pro rata share of

the debtor’s property; thus, when there is not enough to go

around, the bankruptcy judge must establish priorities and

apportion assets among creditors with the same priority.”

(emphasis supplied)

Shri Sibal, however, relied upon the following statements in American

Jurisprudence, which read as follows:

“Chapter 11 reorganization, specifically, has been called a

collective remedy, designed to find the optimum solution for

83

all parties connected with a business – not solely for the

business itself and not solely for its creditors.

xxx xxx xxx

Protecting creditors in general is an important objective as

is protecting creditors from each other.”

There is no doubt that even under our Code, reorganisation is a

collective remedy designed to find an optimum solution for all parties

connected with a business in the manner provided by the Code.

Protecting creditors in general is, no doubt, an important objective -

the observation that protecting creditors from each other is also

important, which must be read with footnote 7 in the American

Jurisprudence, which reads as under:

"In re First Central Financial Corp., 377 F.3d 209 (2d Cir.

2004)

The Bankruptcy Code generally does not imbue creditors

with greater rights in a bankruptcy proceeding than they

would enjoy under otherwise applicable non-bankruptcy

law unless it is to serve some bankruptcy purpose. In re

Vermont Elec. Generation & Transmission Co-op., Inc., 240

B.R. 476 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1999)”

A reading of this footnote will show that what is meant by protecting

creditors from each other is only that a Bankruptcy Code should not

be read so as to imbue creditors with greater rights in a bankruptcy

proceeding than they would enjoy under the general law, unless it is

to serve some bankruptcy purpose.

84

50.The importance of valuing security interests separately from

interests of creditors who do not have security is well set out in the

IMF paper on Development of Standards for Security Interest by

Pascale De Boeck and Thomas Laryea, Counsel, IMF Legal

Department. The learned authors state:

“I.VALUE OF SECURITY INTERESTS

In developing standards for the legal framework of security

interests, it is important to recognize that security interests

serve discernable economic goals. Security interests

reduce credit risk by increasing the creditor’s likelihood to

be repaid, not only when payment is due, but also in the

event of a default by its debtor. This increased likelihood of

repayment produces wider economic benefits. First, the

availability of credit is enhanced; borrowers obtain credit in

cases where they would have otherwise failed absent a

security interest. Second, credit is also made available on

better terms involving, for instance, lower interest rates and

longer maturities. The relative cost of secured credit under

that of unsecured credit reflects the commercial recognition

of the advantages of secured credit in connection with the

recovery of the debt.

The efficiency of the legal framework for secured credit is a

critical factor in the strengthening of financial systems. In

the face of financial sector crises, an effective legal

framework of security interests enables banks and other

credit institutions to mitigate the deterioration of their

claims, it also facilitates corporate restructuring by

providing tools to support interim financing. In the longer

term, an effective framework for security interests fosters

economic growth. Specifically, it supports access to

affordable credit, thereby facilitating the acquisition of

goods. Further, it increases the capacity of enterprises to

finance expansion fueled by the supply of credit. Also, an

effective framework for security interests can support the

development of a sound banking system and promotion of

capital markets founded on the efficient allocation of credit

85

and effective and predictable mechanisms for realizing

credit claims.

xxx xxx xxx

III. General Principles

xxx xxx xxx

• Establish clear and predictable priority rules

The issue of priorities between various security interest

devices and between various types of creditors is

extremely complex, largely due to the myriad of possible

competing interests. Whatever priority rules a legal

framework establishes, they ought to be clear, predictable

and transparent. They need to allow creditors to assess

their position before creating a security interest and to

enforce their rights in case of default in a timely, predictable

and cost-efficient manner.

• Facilitate the enforcement of creditor rights

Enforcement is a critical factor in the law and functioning of

secured credit. A security interest is of little value to a

creditor unless the creditor is able to enforce it in a

predictable, efficient and timely manner vis-à-vis the debtor

and third parties. An effective framework needs to allow

quick and predictable enforcement both within and outside

insolvency proceedings.”

51.Likewise the World Bank Report of 2015 titled Principles for

Effective Insolvency and Creditor/Debtor Regimes states:

“Claims and Claims Resolution Procedures

Treatment of Stakeholder Rights and Priorities

C12.1 The rights of creditors and the priorities of claims

established prior to insolvency proceedings under

commercial or other applicable laws should be upheld in an

insolvency proceeding to preserve the legitimate

expectations of creditors and encourage greater

predictability in commercial relationships. Deviations from

this general rule should occur only where necessary to

promote other compelling policies, such as the policy

86

supporting reorganization, or to maximize the insolvency

estate’s value. Rules of priority should enable creditors to

manage credit efficiently, consistent with the following

additional principles:

C12.2 The priority of secured creditors in their collateral

should be upheld and, absent the secured creditor’s

consent, its interest in the collateral should not be

subordinated to other priorities granted in the course of the

insolvency proceeding. Distributions to secured creditors

should be made as promptly as possible.

C12.3 Following distributions to secured creditors from

their collateral and the payment of claims related to the

costs and expenses of administration, proceeds available

for distribution should be distributed pari passu to the

remaining general unsecured creditors, unless there are

compelling reasons to justify giving priority status to a

particular class of claims. Public interests generally should

not be given precedence over private rights. The number of

priority classes should be kept to a minimum.

C12.4 Workers are a vital part of an enterprise, and careful

consideration should be given to balancing the rights of

employees with those of other creditors.”

However, Shri Sibal stated that this report should not be relied upon

as an earlier World Bank Report of 2010, titled “A Global View of

Business Insolvency Systems” (hereinafter referred to as the “2010

Report”) had opined to the contrary.

52.Quite apart from the fact that the 2010 report is an earlier

report, which opined on the basis of the French system, that creditors

are divided into two separate classes without any further sub-

classification and that the advantage of such system is that it avoids

87

potential conflict of interest among creditors in a particular class, the

report then goes on to state:

“In some cases, classification makes it easier to treat the

claims of major creditors, who may be persuaded to opt to

receive a different treatment from the general class of

unsecured creditors, where such treatment is necessary to

render the plan feasible. In such cases, the treatment for

these major creditors is generally on less favorable terms

than other, similarly situated creditors. Finally, classification

may be a useful means of overriding the vote of a class of

creditors that votes against the plan where the class is

otherwise treated in a fair and equitable manner.

4

”

Even according to this report, therefore, a “cramdown” on dissentient

creditors would pass muster under an insolvency law if such creditors

will receive, under a resolution plan, an amount at least equal to what

such creditors would receive in a liquidation proceeding being

“liquidation value”.

53.Also, Philip R. Wood’s book titled “Principles of International

Insolvency” states:

“Secured creditors are super-priority creditors on

insolvency. Security must stand up on insolvency which is

when it is needed most. Security which is valid between the

parties but not as against the creditors of the debtor is

futile. Bankruptcy law which freeze or delay or weaken or

de-prioritise security on insolvency destroy what the law

4 This override, which has come to be known as a “cramdown” based on its effect, allows

the court to conclude that a rejecting class should be compelled to accept the plan where the

class is paid in strict accordance with the relative priority of creditor claims and will receive

under the plan a distribution in an amount equal to or greater than such creditors would

receive in a liquidation proceeding. The rationale is that these creditors cannot claim “foul” if

their recovery is at least as good as they would have received if they had prevailed in having

the enterprise liquidated.

88

created. Hence the end is more important than the

beginning.

Rationale of security - The main purposes and policies of

security are: protection of creditors on insolvency; the

limitation of cascade or domino insolvencies; security

encourages capital, e.g. enterprise finance; security

reduces the cost of credit, e.g. margin collateral in markets;

he who pays for the asset should have the right to the

asset; security encourages the private rescue since the

bank feels safer; security is defensive control, especially in

the case of project finance; security is a fair exchange for

the credit.

Main Objections to security The objections to security

are mainly historical, but they resurrect and live on. The

hostility may stem from: debtor-protection stirred by the

ancient hostility to usurers and money-lending and now

expressed in consumer protection statutes; the prevention

of false wealth, i.e. the debtor has many possessions but

few assets – this is usually met by a requirement for

possession (inefficient because not public) or public

registration; unsecured creditors get less on insolvency and

this is seen as a violation of bankruptcy equality, although

more often it is motivated by desire to protect unpaid

employees and small creditors; security disturbs the safety

of commercial transactions because of priority risks, e.g.

the purchaser of goods; the secured creditor can disrupt a

rescue by selling an essential asset.”

54.Indeed, if an “equality for all” approach recognising the rights of

different classes of creditors as part of an insolvency resolution

process is adopted, secured financial creditors will, in many cases, be

incentivised to vote for liquidation rather than resolution, as they

would have better rights if the corporate debtor was to be liquidated

rather than a resolution plan being approved. This would defeat the

entire objective of the Code which is to first ensure that resolution of

89

distressed assets takes place and only if the same is not possible

should liquidation follow.

55.Financial creditors are in the business of lending money. The

RBI report on Trend and Progress of Banking in India, 2017-2018

reflects that the net interest margin of Indian banks for the financial

year 2017-2018 is averaged at 2.5%. Likewise, the global trend for

net interest margin was at 3.3% for banks in the USA and 1.6% for

banks in the UK in the year 2016, as per the data published on the

website of the bank. Thus, it is clear that financial creditors earn profit

by earning interest on money lent with low margins, generally being

between 1 to 4%. Also, financial creditors are capital providers for

companies, who in turn are able to purchase assets and provide a

working capital to enable such companies to run their business

operation, whereas operational creditors are beneficiaries of amounts

lent by financial creditors which are then used as working capital, and

often get paid for goods and services provided by them to the

corporate debtor, out of such working capital. On the other hand,

market research carried out by India Brand Equity Foundation, a trust

established by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, as regards the

Oil and Gas sector, has stated that the business risk of operational

creditors who operate with higher profit margins and shorter cyclical

90

repayments must needs be higher. Also, operational creditors have

an immediate exit option, by stopping supply to the corporate debtor,

once corporate debtors start defaulting in payment. Financial

creditors may exit on their long-term loans, either upon repayment of

the full amount or upon default, by recalling the entire loan facility

and/or enforcing the security interest which is a time consuming and

lengthy process which usually involves litigation. Financial creditors

are also part of a regulated banking system which involves not merely

declaring defaulters as non-performing assets but also involves

restructuring such loans which often results in foregoing unpaid

amounts of interest either wholly or partially. All these differences

between financial and operational creditors have been reflected,

albeit differently, in the judgment of Swiss Ribbons (supra). Thus,

this Court in dealing with some of the differences has held:

“50. According to us, it is clear that most financial creditors,

particularly banks and financial institutions, are secured

creditors whereas most operational creditors are

unsecured, payments for goods and services as well as

payments to workers not being secured by mortgaged

documents and the like. The distinction between secured

and unsecured creditors is a distinction which has obtained

since the earliest of the Companies Acts both in the United

Kingdom and in this country. Apart from the above, the

nature of loan agreements with financial creditors is

different from contracts with operational creditors for

supplying goods and services. Financial creditors generally

lend finance on a term loan or for working capital that

enables the corporate debtor to either set up and/or

operate its business. On the other hand, contracts with

91

operational creditors are relatable to supply of goods and

services in the operation of business. Financial contracts

generally involve large sums of money. By way of contrast,

operational contracts have dues whose quantum is

generally less. In the running of a business, operational

creditors can be many as opposed to financial creditors,

who lend finance for the set-up or working of business.

Also, financial creditors have specified repayment

schedules, and defaults entitle financial creditors to recall a

loan in totality. Contracts with operational creditors do not

have any such stipulations. Also, the forum in which

dispute resolution takes place is completely different.

Contracts with operational creditors can and do have

arbitration clauses where dispute resolution is done

privately. Operational debts also tend to be recurring in

nature and the possibility of genuine disputes in case of

operational debts is much higher when compared to

financial debts. A simple example will suffice. Goods that

are supplied may be substandard. Services that are

provided may be substandard. Goods may not have been

supplied at all. All these qua operational debts are matters

to be proved in arbitration or in the courts of law. On the

other hand, financial debts made to banks and financial

institutions are well documented and defaults made are

easily verifiable.

51. Most importantly, financial creditors are, from the very

beginning, involved with assessing the viability of the

corporate debtor. They can, and therefore do, engage in

restructuring of the loan as well as reorganisation of the

corporate debtor's business when there is financial stress,

which are things operational creditors do not and cannot

do. Thus, preserving the corporate debtor as a going

concern, while ensuring maximum recovery for all creditors

being the objective of the Code, financial creditors are

clearly different from operational creditors and therefore,

there is obviously an intelligible differentia between the two

which has a direct relation to the objects sought to be

achieved by the Code.

xxx xxx xxx

92

75. Since the financial creditors are in the business of

moneylending, banks and financial institutions are best

equipped to assess viability and feasibility of the business

of the corporate debtor. Even at the time of granting loans,

these banks and financial institutions undertake a detailed

market study which includes a techno-economic valuation

report, evaluation of business, financial projection, etc.

Since this detailed study has already been undertaken

before sanctioning a loan, and since financial creditors

have trained employees to assess viability and feasibility,

they are in a good position to evaluate the contents of a

resolution plan. On the other hand, operational creditors,

who provide goods and services, are involved only in

recovering amounts that are paid for such goods and

services, and are typically unable to assess viability and

feasibility of business. The BLRC Report, already quoted

above, makes this abundantly clear.

xxx xxx xxx

76. Quite apart from this, the United Nations Commission

on International Trade Law, in its Legislative Guide on

Insolvency Law (the UNCITRAL Guidelines) recognises the

importance of ensuring equitable treatment to similarly

placed creditors and states as follows:

“Ensuring equitable treatment of similarly situated creditors

7. The objective of equitable treatment is based on the

notion that, in collective proceedings, creditors with similar

legal rights should be treated fairly, receiving a distribution

on their claim in accordance with their relative ranking and

interests. This key objective recognises that all creditors do

not need to be treated identically, but in a manner that

reflects the different bargains they have struck with the

debtor. This is less relevant as a defining factor where

there is no specific debt contract with the debtor, such as in

the case of damage claimants (e.g. for environmental

damage) and tax authorities. Even though the principle of

equitable treatment may be modified by social policy on

priorities and give way to the prerogatives pertaining to

holders of claims or interests that arise, for example, by

operation of law, it retains its significance

by UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law ensuring

93

that the priority accorded to the claims of a similar class

affects all members of the class in the same manner. The

policy of equitable treatment permeates many aspects of

an insolvency law, including the application of the stay or

suspension, provisions to set aside acts and transactions

and recapture value for the insolvency estate, classification

of claims, voting procedures in reorganisation and

distribution mechanisms. An insolvency law should address

problems of fraud and favouritism that may arise in cases

of financial distress by providing, for example, that acts and

transactions detrimental to equitable treatment of creditors

can be avoided.”

77. NCLAT has, while looking into viability and feasibility of

resolution plans that are approved by the Committee of

Creditors, always gone into whether operational creditors

are given roughly the same treatment as financial creditors,

and if they are not, such plans are either rejected or

modified so that the operational creditors' rights are

safeguarded. It may be seen that a resolution plan cannot

pass muster under Section 30(2)(b) read with Section 31

unless a minimum payment is made to operational

creditors, being not less than liquidation value. Further, on

5-10-2018, Regulation 38 has been amended. Prior to the

amendment, Regulation 38 read as follows:

“38. Mandatory contents of the resolution plan.—(1)

A resolution plan shall identify specific sources of funds

that will be used to pay the—

(a) insolvency resolution process costs and provide that

the insolvency resolution process costs, to the extent

unpaid, will be paid in priority to any other creditor;

(b) liquidation value due to operational creditors and

provide for such payment in priority to any financial creditor

which shall in any event be made before the expiry of thirty

days after the approval of a resolution plan by the

adjudicating authority; and

(c) liquidation value due to dissenting financial creditors

and provide that such payment is made before any

recoveries are made by the financial creditors who voted in

favour of the resolution plan.”

Post amendment, Regulation 38 reads as follows:

94

“38. Mandatory contents of the resolution plan.—(1)

The amount due to the operational creditors under a

resolution plan shall be given priority in payment over

financial creditors.

(1-A) A resolution plan shall include a statement as to

how it has dealt with the interests of all stakeholders,

including financial creditors and operational creditors, of

the corporate debtor.”

The aforesaid Regulation further strengthens the rights of

operational creditors by statutorily incorporating the

principle of fair and equitable dealing of operational

creditors' rights, together with priority in payment over

financial creditors.”

(emphasis supplied)

56.By reading paragraph 77 de hors the earlier paragraphs, the

Appellate Tribunal has fallen into grave error. Paragraph 76 clearly

refers to the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide which makes it clear

beyond any doubt that equitable treatment is only of similarly situated

creditors. This being so, the observation in paragraph 77 cannot be

read to mean that financial and operational creditors must be paid the

same amounts in any resolution plan before it can pass muster. On

the contrary, paragraph 77 itself makes it clear that there is a

difference in payment of the debts of financial and operational

creditors, operational creditors having to receive a minimum payment,

being not less than liquidation value, which does not apply to financial

creditors. The amended Regulation 38 set out in paragraph 77 again

does not lead to the conclusion that financial and operational

creditors, or secured and unsecured creditors, must be paid the same

95

amounts, percentage wise, under the resolution plan before it can

pass muster. Fair and equitable dealing of operational creditors’ rights

under the said Regulation involves the resolution plan stating as to

how it has dealt with the interests of operational creditors, which is

not the same thing as saying that they must be paid the same amount

of their debt proportionately. Also, the fact that the operational

creditors are given priority in payment over all financial creditors does

not lead to the conclusion that such payment must necessarily be the

same recovery percentage as financial creditors. So long as the

provisions of the Code and the Regulations have been met, it is the

commercial wisdom of the requisite majority of the Committee of

Creditors which is to negotiate and accept a resolution plan, which

may involve differential payment to different classes of creditors,

together with negotiating with a prospective resolution applicant for

better or different terms which may also involve differences in

distribution of amounts between different classes of creditors.

57.Indeed, by vesting the Committee of Creditors with the

discretion of accepting resolution plans only with financial creditors,

operational creditors having no vote, the Code itself differentiates

between the two types of creditors for the reasons given above.

Further, as has been reflected in Swiss Ribbons (supra), most

96

financial creditors are secured creditors, whose security interests

must be protected in order that they do not go ahead and realise their

security in legal proceedings, but instead are incentivised to act within

the framework of the Code as persons who will resolve stressed

assets and bring a corporate debtor back to its feet. Shri Sibal’s

argument that the expression “secured creditor” does not find

mention in Chapter II of the Code, which deals with the resolution

process, and is only found in Chapter III, which deals with liquidation,

is for the reason that secured creditors as a class are subsumed in

the class of financial creditors, as has been held in Swiss Ribbons

(supra). Indeed, Regulation 13(1) of the 2016 Regulations mandates

that when the resolution professional verifies claims, the security

interest of secured creditors is also looked at and gets taken care of.

Similarly, Regulation 36(2)(d) when it provides for a list of creditors

and the amounts claimed by them in the information memorandum

(which is to be submitted to prospective resolution applicants), also

provides for the amount of claims admitted and security interest in

respect of such claims. Under Regulation 39(4), the compliance

certificate of the resolution professional as to the CIRP being

successful is contained in Form H to the Regulations. This statutory

form, in paragraphs 6 and 7, states as under:

97

“6. The Resolution Plan includes a statement under

regulation 38(1A) of the CIRP Regulations as to how it has

dealt with the interests of all stakeholders in compliance

with the Code and regulations made thereunder.

7. The amounts provided for the stakeholders under the

Resolution Plan is as under:

(Amount in Rs. Lakh)

Sl.

No.

Category of

Stakeholder

Amount

Claimed

Amount

Admitted

Amount

Provided

under the

Plan

Amount

Provided

to the

Amount

Claimed

(%)

1 Dissenting

Secured

Financial

Creditors

2 Other Secured

Financial

Creditors

3 Dissenting

Unsecured

Financial

Creditors

4 Other

Unsecured

Financial

Creditors

5 Operational

Creditors

Government

Workmen

Employees

…

4 Other Debts

and Dues

Total

Quite clearly, secured and unsecured financial creditors are

differentiated when it comes to amounts to be paid under a resolution

98

plan, together with what dissenting secured or unsecured financial

creditors are to be paid. And, most importantly, operational creditors

are separately viewed from these secured and unsecured financial

creditors in S.No.5 of paragraph 7 of statutory Form H. Thus, it can

be seen that the Code and the Regulations, read as a whole, together

with the observations of expert bodies and this Court’s judgment, all

lead to the conclusion that the equality principle cannot be stretched

to treating unequals equally, as that will destroy the very objective of

the Code - to resolve stressed assets. Equitable treatment is to be

accorded to each creditor depending upon the class to which it

belongs: secured or unsecured, financial or operational.

58.However, Shri Sibal relied strongly upon a judgment of this

Court being Mihir R. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (1997) 1

SCC 579, and in particular paragraph 28 thereof, which stated as

follows:

“28. …On a conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of

Sections 391 and 393 it becomes at once clear that the

Company Court which is called upon to sanction such a

scheme has not merely to go by the ipse dixit of the

majority of the shareholders or creditors or their respective

classes who might have voted in favour of the scheme by

requisite majority but the Court has to consider the pros

and cons of the scheme with a view to finding out whether

the scheme is fair, just and reasonable and is not contrary

to any provisions of law and it does not violate any public

policy. This is implicit in the very concept of compromise or

99

arrangement which is required to receive the imprimatur of

a court of law. No court of law would ever countenance any

scheme of compromise or arrangement arrived at between

the parties and which might be supported by the requisite

majority if the Court finds that it is an unconscionable or an

illegal scheme or is otherwise unfair or unjust to the class

of shareholders or creditors for whom it is meant.

Consequently it cannot be said that a Company Court

before whom an application is moved for sanctioning such

a scheme which might have got the requisite majority

support of the creditors or members or any class of them

for whom the scheme is mooted by the company

concerned, has to act merely as a rubber stamp and must

almost automatically put its seal of approval on such a

scheme. It is trite to say that once the scheme gets

sanctioned by the Court it would bind even the dissenting

minority shareholders or creditors. Therefore, the fairness

of the scheme qua them also has to be kept in view by the

Company Court while putting its seal of approval on the

scheme concerned placed for its sanction. It is, of course,

true that so far as the Company Court is concerned as per

the statutory provisions of Sections 391 and 393 of the Act

the question of voidability of the scheme will have to be

judged subject to the rider that a scheme sanctioned by

majority will remain binding to a dissenting minority of

creditors or members, as the case may be, even though

they have not consented to such a scheme and to that

extent absence of their consent will have no effect on the

scheme. It can be postulated that even in case of such a

scheme of compromise and arrangement put up for

sanction of a Company Court it will have to be seen

whether the proposed scheme is lawful and just and fair to

the whole class of creditors or members including the

dissenting minority to whom it is offered for approval and

which has been approved by such class of persons with

requisite majority vote.”

The very next paragraph, however, states as follows:

100

“29. However further question remains whether the Court

has jurisdiction like an appellate authority to minutely

scrutinise the scheme and to arrive at an independent

conclusion whether the scheme should be permitted to go

through or not when the majority of the creditors or

members or their respective classes have approved the

scheme as required by Section 391 sub-section (2). On this

aspect the nature of compromise or arrangement between

the company and the creditors and members has to be

kept in view. It is the commercial wisdom of the parties to

the scheme who have taken an informed decision about

the usefulness and propriety of the scheme by supporting it

by the requisite majority vote that has to be kept in view by

the Court. The Court certainly would not act as a court of

appeal and sit in judgment over the informed view of the

parties concerned to the compromise as the same would

be in the realm of corporate and commercial wisdom of the

parties concerned. The Court has neither the expertise nor

the jurisdiction to delve deep into the commercial wisdom

exercised by the creditors and members of the company

who have ratified the Scheme by the requisite majority.

Consequently the Company Court's jurisdiction to that

extent is peripheral and supervisory and not appellate. The

Court acts like an umpire in a game of cricket who has to

see that both the teams play their game according to the

rules and do not overstep the limits. But subject to that how

best the game is to be played is left to the players and not

to the umpire.”

In Mihir Mafatlal (supra), the Court was dealing with schemes of

amalgamation under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Under

Section 392 of the said Act, the High Court is vested with a

supervisory jurisdiction, which includes the power to give directions

and make modifications in such schemes, as it may consider

necessary, for the proper working of the said Schemes. This power in

Section 392 is conspicuous by its absence when it comes to the

101

Adjudicating Authority under the Code, whose jurisdiction is

circumscribed by Section 30(2). It is the Committee of Creditors,

under Section 30(4) read with Regulation 39(3), that is vested with

the power to approve resolution plans and make modifications therein

as the Committee deems fit. It is this vital difference between the

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 392 of the Companies

Act, 1956 and the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under the

Code that must be kept in mind when the Adjudicating Authority is to

decide on whether a resolution plan passes muster under the Code.

When this distinction is kept in mind, it is clear that there is no

residual jurisdiction not to approve a resolution plan on the ground

that it is unfair or unjust to a class of creditors, so long as the interest

of each class has been looked into and taken care of. It is important

to note that even under Sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act,

1956, ultimately it is the commercial wisdom of the parties to the

scheme, reflected in the 75% majority vote, which then binds all

shareholders and creditors. Even under Sections 391 and 392, the

High Court cannot act as a court of appeal and sit in judgment over

such commercial wisdom.

The constitution of a sub-committee by the Committee of

Creditors

102

59.A large part of Shri Sibal’s submission was centered around the

fact that the Committee of Creditors delegated its functions to a sub-

committee, which delegation is impermissible. As a result of this

delegation, the sub-committee secretly made negotiations with

ArcelorMittal, which secret negotiations then produced a wholly

inequitable result in that Standard Chartered Bank, though a financial

creditor, was only paid 1.74% of its admitted claim of INR 3487 crores

as opposed to other financial creditors who were paid 74.8% of what

was claimed by them.

60.Under Section 21(8) of the Code, all decisions by the

Committee of Creditors can be taken by a 51% majority vote, unless,

a higher percentage is required under other specific provisions of the

Code.

61.In Pradyat Kumar Bhose v. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

Calcutta High Court (1955) 2 SCR 1331 at page 1345-1346, this

Court, when dealing with the Chief Justice of the High Court of

Calcutta’s administrative powers held:

“The further subordinate objections that have been raised

remain to be considered. The first objection that has been

urged is that even if the Chief Justice had the power to

dismiss, he was not, in exercise of that power, competent

to delegate to another Judge the enquiry into the charges

but should have made the enquiry himself. This contention

proceeds on a misapprehension of the nature of the power.

103

As pointed out in Barnard v. National Dock Labour

Board [(1953) 2 QB 18, 40] at p. 40, it is true that “no

judicial tribunal can delegate its functions unless it is

enabled to do so expressly or by necessary implication”.

But the exercise of the power to appoint or dismiss an

officer is the exercise not of a judicial power but of an

administrative power. It is nonetheless so, by reason of the

fact that an opportunity to show cause and an enquiry

simulating judicial standards have to precede the exercise

thereof. It is well-recognised that a statutory functionary

exercising such a power cannot be said to have delegated

his functions merely by deputing a responsible and

competent official to enquire and report. That is the

ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power.

What cannot be delegated except where the law

specifically so provides — is the ultimate responsibility for

the exercise of such power. As pointed out by the House of

Lords in Board of Education v. Rice [(1911) AC 179, 182] ,

a functionary who has to decide an administrative matter,

of the nature involved in this case, can obtain the material

on which he is to act in such manner as may be feasible

and convenient, provided only the affected party “has a fair

opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant and

prejudicial material”. The following passage from the

speech of Lord Chancellor in Local Government

Board v. Arlidge [(1915) AC 120, 133] is apposite and

instructive:

“My Lords, I concur in this view of the position of an

administrative body to which the decision of a question in

dispute between parties has been entrusted. The result of

its inquiry must, as I have said, be taken, in the absence of

directions in the statute to the contrary, to be intended to be

reached by its ordinary procedure. In the case of the Local

Government Board it is not doubtful what this procedure is.

The Minister at the head of the Board is directly

responsible to Parliament like other Ministers. He is

responsible not only for what he himself does but for all

that is done in his department. The volume of work

entrusted to him is very great and he cannot do the great

bulk of it himself. He is expected to obtain his materials

vicariously through his officials, and he has discharged his

duty if he sees that they obtain these materials for him

properly. To try to extend his duty beyond this and to insist

104

that he and other members of the Board should do

everything personally would be to impair his efficiency.

Unlike a Judge in a Court he is not only at liberty but is

compelled to rely on the assistance of his staff.”

In view of the above clear statement of the law the

objection to the validity of the dismissal on the ground that

the delegation of the enquiry amounts to the delegation of

the power itself is without any substance and must be

rejected.”

Likewise, in High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its

Registrar v. Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil & Anr. (1997) 6 SCC 339,

this Court, in dealing with the constitution of various committees for

the administration of the High Court, when dealing with question of

delegation held:

“10. It would thus be settled law that the control of the

subordinate judiciary under Article 235 is vested in the High

Court. After the appointment of the judicial officers by the

Governor, the power to transfer, maintain discipline and

keep control over them vests in the High Court. The Chief

Justice of the High Court is first among the Judges of the

High Court. The action taken is by the High Court and not

by the Chief Justice in his individual capacity, nor by the

Committee of Judges. For the convenient transaction of

administrative business in the Court, the Full Court of the

Judges of the High Court generally passes a resolution

authorising the Chief Justice to constitute various

committees including the committee to deal with

disciplinary matters pertaining to the subordinate judiciary

or the ministerial staff working therein. Article 235,

therefore, relates to the power of taking a decision by the

High Court against a member of the subordinate judiciary.

Such a decision either to hold an enquiry into the conduct

of a judicial officer, subordinate or higher judiciary, or to

have the enquiry conducted through a District or Additional

District Judge etc. and to consider the report of the enquiry

officer for taking further action is of the High Court. Equally,

the decision to consider the report of the enquiry officer

105

and to take follow-up action and to make appropriate

recommendation to the Disciplinary Committee or to the

Governor, is entirely of the High Court which acts through

the Committee of the Judges authorised by the Full Court.

Once a resolution is passed by the Full Court of the High

Court, there is no further necessity to refer the matter again

to the Full Court while taking such procedural steps relating

to control of the subordinate judiciary.”

62.We find, that when it comes to the exercise of the Committee of

Creditors’ powers on questions which have a vital bearing on the

running of the business of the corporate debtor, Section 28(1)(h)

provides that though these powers are administrative in nature, they

shall not be delegated to any other person, meaning thereby, that the

Committee of Creditors alone must take the decisions mentioned in

Section 28 and not any person other than such Committee. When it

comes to approving a resolution plan under Section 30(4), there is no

doubt whatsoever that this power also cannot be delegated to any

other body as it is the Committee of Creditors alone that has been

vested with this important business decision which it must take by

itself. However, this does not mean that sub-committees cannot be

appointed for the purpose of negotiating with resolution applicants, or

for the purpose of performing other ministerial or administrative acts,

provided such acts are in the ultimate analysis approved and ratified

by the Committee of Creditors. We find, having gone through the

minutes of all the important creditors’ meetings that were held, that

106

every single administrative decision qua approving and administering

the resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal was in fact done by the

requisite majority of the Committee of Creditors itself, the sub-

committee having been used only for purposes of initiating

proceedings and negotiating with ArcelorMittal, which ultimately

culminated in the resolution plan as finally negotiated, being passed

by the requisite majority of creditors on 23.10.2018. In point of fact,

Standard Chartered Bank voted in favour of the constitution of a sub-

committee on the 12

th

committee of creditors meeting of 02.05.2018,

as also, in favour of decisions of the Committee of Creditors finalizing

drafts of sub-committees on eligibility of resolution applicants at the

13

th

Committee of Creditors meeting on 05.05.2018. Also, as a

matter of fact, on 31.05.2018, at the 16

th

Committee of Creditors

meeting, a request was made by Standard Chartered Bank to be a

member of the sub-committee, which request was later withdrawn.

We also find that in the authorisation to the sub-committee to

negotiate with ArcelorMittal, mooted at the 20

th

Committee of

Creditors meeting on 19.10.2018, a request was made by Standard

Chartered Bank for inclusion in the said sub-committee. However,

Standard Chartered Bank did not agree to put the reconstitution of

the sub-committee to vote by the Committee of Creditors. Given

these facts, we find, therefore, that it is only when Standard

107

Chartered Bank found that things were going against it that it started

raising objections on the technical plea that sub-committees cannot

be constituted under the Code. This is not a bonafide plea. For all

these reasons, this objection of Standard Chartered Bank is also

rejected.

Extinguishment of Personal Guarantees and Undecided Claims

63.Shri Gopal Subramanium and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi have also

appealed against the extinguishment of the rights of creditors against

guarantees that were extended by the promoters/promoter group of

the corporate debtor. According to them, this was done by a side wind

by the Appellate Tribunal without any reasons for the same.

64.Shri Prashant Ruia a promoter/director of the corporate debtor

in his personal guarantee dated 28.09.2013, specifically stated as

follows:

“7. The obligations of the Guarantor under this Guarantee

shall not be affected by any act, omission, matter or thing

that, but for this Guarantee, would reduce, release or

prejudice any of its obligations under this Guarantee

(without limitation and whether or not known to it or any

Secured Party) including :

xxx xxx xxx

(g)any insolvency or similar proceedings.”

108

Also, under the caption “terms of settlement”, the final resolution plan

dated 02.04.2018, as approved on 23.10.2018, specifically provided:

“Financial Creditors:

Pursuant to the approval of this Resolution Plan by the

Adjudicating Authority, each of the Financial Creditors shall

be deemed to have agreed and acknowledged the

following terms:

 The payment to the Financial creditors in accordance

with this Resolution Plan shall be treated as full and final

payment of all outstanding dues of the Corporate Debtor to

each of the Financial Creditors as of the Effective Date,

and all agreements and arrangements entered into by or in

favour of each of the Financial Creditors, including but not

limited to loan agreements and security agreements (other

than corporate or personal guarantees provided in relation

to the Corporate Debtor by the Existing Promoter Group or

their respective affiliates) shall be deemed to have been

(i) assigned / novated to the Resolution applicant, or any

Person nominated by the Resolution applicant, with effect

from the effective Date, with no rights subsisting or

accruing to the Financial Creditors for the period prior to

such assignment or novation; and (ii) to the extent not

legally capable of assigned or novated- terminated with

effect from the effective Date, with no rights accruing or

subsisting to the Financial Creditors for the period prior to

termination.

In relation to the loan and financial assistance provided to

the Corporate Debtor; each of the Financial Creditors, as

the case maybe, shall:

-Assign/ novate all security given (including but not limited

to Encumbrance over assets of the Corporate Debtor,

pledge of shares of the Corporate Debtor (other than

corporate guarantees and personal guarantees) related in

any manner to the Corporate Debtor) to the Resolution

Applicant and /or its Connected Persons, and /or banks or

financial institutions designated by the Resolution Applicant

109

in this regard, pursuant to the Acquisition Structure, with

effect from the Effective Date;

-Issue such letters and communications, and take such

other actions, as may be required or deemed necessary for

the release, assignment or novation of (i) the Encumbrance

over the assets of the Corporate Debtor; and (ii) the pledge

over the shares of the Corporate Debtor; within 5(five)

Business Days from the Effective Date; and

-Be deemed to have waived all claims and dues (including

interest and penalty, if any) from the Corporate Debtor

arising on and from the insolvency Commencement Date,

until the effective Date.”

65.Shri Rohatgi, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of

Shri Prashant Ruia, also pointed out Section XIII (1)(g) of the

resolution plan dated 23.10.18, in which it is stated as follows:

“Upon the approval of the Resolution Plan by the

Adjudicating Authority in relation to guarantees provided for

and on behalf of, and in order to secure the financial

assistance availed by the Corporate Debtor, which have

been invoked prior to the Effective Date, claims of the

guarantor on account of subrogation, if any, under any

such guarantee shall be deemed to have been abated,

released, discharged and extinguished.

It is hereby clarified that, the aforementioned clause shall

not apply in any manner which may extinguish/affect the

rights of the Financial Creditors to enforce the corporate

guarantees and personal guarantees issued for and on

behalf of the Corporate Debtor by Existing Promoter Group

or their respective affiliates, which guarantees shall

continue to be retained by the Financial Creditors and shall

continue to be enforceable by them.”

(emphasis supplied)

We were also informed by the learned senior counsel that the

personal guarantees of the promoter group have been invoked and

110

legal proceedings in respect thereof are pending. It has been pointed

out to us that Shri Prashant Ruia and other members of the promoter

group, who are guarantors, are not parties to the resolution plan

submitted by ArcelorMittal and hence, the resolution plan cannot bind

them to take away rights of subrogation, which they may have if they

are ordered to pay amounts guaranteed by them in the pending legal

proceedings.

66.Section 31(1) of the Code makes it clear that once a resolution

plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors it shall be binding on

all stakeholders, including guarantors. This is for the reason that this

provision ensures that the successful resolution applicant starts

running the business of the corporate debtor on a fresh slate as it

were. In State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, 2018 (9) SCALE

597, this Court relying upon Section 31 of the Code has held:

“22. Section 31 of the Act was also strongly relied upon by

the Respondents. This Section only states that once a

Resolution Plan, as approved by the Committee of

Creditors, takes effect, it shall be binding on the corporate

debtor as well as the guarantor. This is for the reason that

otherwise, Under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act,

1872, any change made to the debt owed by the corporate

debtor, without the surety's consent, would relieve the

guarantor from payment. Section 31(1), in fact, makes it

clear that the guarantor cannot escape payment as the

Resolution Plan, which has been approved, may well

include provisions as to payments to be made by such

guarantor. This is perhaps the reason that Annexure VI(e)

to Form 6 contained in the Rules and Regulation 36(2)

111

referred to above, require information as to personal

guarantees that have been given in relation to the debts of

the corporate debtor. Far from supporting the stand of the

Respondents, it is clear that in point of fact, Section 31 is

one more factor in favour of a personal guarantor having to

pay for debts due without any moratorium applying to save

him.”

Following this judgment, it is difficult to accept Shri Rohatgi’s

argument that that part of the resolution plan which states that the

claims of the guarantor on account of subrogation shall be

extinguished, cannot be applied to the guarantees furnished by the

erstwhile directors of the corporate debtor. So far as the present case

is concerned, we hasten to add that we are saying nothing which may

affect the pending litigation on account of invocation of these

guarantees. However, the NCLAT judgment being contrary to Section

31(1) of the Code and this Court’s judgment in State Bank of India

(supra), is set aside.

67.For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment in holding

that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the

resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate

Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of

Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of

Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot

suddenly be faced with “undecided” claims after the resolution plan

112

submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra

head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable

by a prospective resolution applicant who successfully take over the

business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and

decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective

resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it

may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This

the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been

pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, the NCLAT

judgment must also be set aside on this count.

Utilisation of profits of the corporate debtor during CIRP to pay

off creditors

68.The RFP issued in terms of Section 25 of the Code and

consented to by ArcelorMittal and the Committee of Creditors had

provided that distribution of profits made during the corporate

insolvency process will not go towards payment of debts of any

creditor – see Clause 7 of the first addendum to the RFP dated

08.02.2018. On this short ground, this part of the judgment of the

NCLAT is also incorrect.

Constitutional Validity of Section 4 and 6 of the Amending Act,

2019

113

69.In Swiss Ribbons (supra) this Court was at pains to point out,

referring, inter alia, to various American decisions in paras 17 to 24,

that the legislature must be given free play in the joints when it comes

to economic legislation. Apart from the presumption of

constitutionality which arises in such cases, the legislative judgment

in economic choices must be given a certain degree of deference by

the courts. In para 120 of the said judgment, this Court held:

“120. The Insolvency Code is a legislation which deals with

economic matters and, in the larger sense, deals with the

economy of the country as a whole. Earlier experiments, as

we have seen, in terms of legislations having failed, “trial”

having led to repeated “errors”, ultimately led to the

enactment of the Code. The experiment contained in the

Code, judged by the generality of its provisions and not by

so-called crudities and inequities that have been pointed

out by the petitioners, passes constitutional muster. To stay

experimentation in things economic is a grave

responsibility, and denial of the right to experiment is

fraught with serious consequences to the nation. We have

also seen that the working of the Code is being monitored

by the Central Government by Expert Committees that

have been set up in this behalf. Amendments have been

made in the short period in which the Code has operated,

both to the Code itself as well as to subordinate legislation

made under it. This process is an ongoing process which

involves all stakeholders, including the petitioners.”

It is in this background that the constitutional challenge to the

Amending Act of 2019 will have to be decided.

70.Closely on the heels of the impugned NCLAT judgment which

was delivered on 04.07.2019, a representation dated 17.07.2019 was

written by the Deputy Secretary General, FICCI to the Secretary,

114

Ministry of Corporate Affairs, pointing out the flaws of the NCLAT

judgment and suggesting that the Government may consider

amendment of the Code to reinstate the law as it was and should be.

This representation stated:

“A case in point is the recent NCLAT judgment which, in

effect, places Secured and unsecured Financial Creditors

as well as Financial and Operational Creditors on an equal

footing, thus virtually erasing the distinction specifically

carved between these two classes of creditors by the

provisions of the Code. It may be noted that the

consequences of this order stretch beyond this particular

case.

The doctrine that secured creditors shall rank ahead of

unsecured creditors is a core principle of banking. It allows

banks to lend to companies and individuals at lower rates

of interest in a secured lending because they know that

their loan is secured and in the eventuality of a default,

their losses would be mitigated. By virtue of this order, the

borrowing rates for all classes would go up in the future

because banks can’t be sure of protecting their losses. The

fundamental principles of credit analysis and rating no

longer hold true. This would also result in unjust enrichment

for some creditors who, knowing that they don’t have

benefit of the security, lent at a much higher rate as

compared to the secured lenders. Besides earning far

more money than secured creditors, due to higher interest

rate during the pre insolvency stage they now have the

benefit of higher share in the plan value, at the expense of

secured creditors. In fact the ruling puts in question the

very concept of security – what is the use of a

charge/security if it is meaningless in insolvency? Even

other statutes, including the Companies Act, 2013 clearly

lay down a distinction between secured and unsecured

creditors and if both are treated at par it will be a huge

disincentive for secured creditors…In fact, in its judgement

on the constitutionality of the IBC earlier this year, the

Supreme Court had justified the difference between

115

financial and operational creditors. The NCLAT order

effectively negates that distinction, which is against the

fundamental theme of the IBC. If the distinction between

secured and unsecured financial creditors and between

financial and operational creditors is not maintained,

bankers would be reluctant to use the IBC provisions for

resolution of stressed assets, and would prefer for the

companies to enter liquidation, which is certainly not the

intent of the Code. The decision may also open the flood-

gates for reopening of previously concluded cases as well

as filing of fresh applications and appeals by operational

creditors, alleging discrimination and seeking parity with

financial creditors and also by unsecured financial

creditors, alleging discrimination and seeking parity with

secured financial creditors.

xxx xxx xxx

We would like to draw your attention to Sections 30 and 31

of the Code which contain detailed provisions on

submission and approval of the resolution plan. As per

section 31(1), once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied

that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of

creditors meets the requirements of section 30, it shall

approve the resolution plan. The Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Board of India has also prescribed rules and

regulations on mandatory requirements of resolution plan.

The statute thus clearly empowers the committee of

creditors to decide the distribution of funds. It also

recognizes that as long as the resolution plan is in

conformity with law, the Adjudication Authority must

approve the resolution plan, as is evidenced by the usage

of the word ‘shall’ in section 31(1). In K. Sashidhar case the

Supreme Court has clearly held that commercial decisions

of the committee of creditors are not open to judicial

review. We would like to clarify that the fundamental

principle that there should be no discrimination between

similarly situated creditors is not being questioned by the

industry. The question is whether we can redefine class to

mean all financial creditors irrespective of inter-creditor

arrangement or their security. Such a finding is a complete

rewrite of laws, practices and the agreement and bargain of

116

parties at the time of financing (or when goods or services

were provided).

We therefore strongly suggest that the Government may

consider amendment of the Code to expressly clarify the

distinction between secured and unsecured creditors and

between financial and operational creditors. Also, decisions

of resolution applicant, as accepted by the committee of

creditors should be considered final unless they are found

to be contrary to law. This would avoid any confusion; be in

line with the global practices and held India retain its status

of preferred investment destination.”

71.Pursuant to this and representations from Banks and industry,

the Amending Act of 2019 was then made. Sections 4 and 6 of the

Amending Act of 2019 read as under:

“4. Amendment of section 12.

In section 12 of the principal Act, in sub-section (3), after

the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted,

namely:––

“Provided further that the corporate insolvency resolution

process shall mandatorily be completed within a period of

three hundred and thirty days from the insolvency

commencement date, including any extension of the period

of corporate insolvency resolution process granted under

this section and the time taken in legal proceedings in

relation to such resolution process of the corporate debtor:

Provided also that where the insolvency resolution process

of a corporate debtor is pending and has not been

completed within the period referred to in the second

proviso, such resolution process shall be completed within

a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act,

2019.”

xxx xxx xxx

6. Amendment to section 30.

In section 30 of the principal Act,––

117

(a) in sub-section (2), for clause (b), the following shall be

substituted, namely:—

“(b) provides for the payment of debts of operational

creditors in such manner as may be specified by the

Board which shall not be less than––

(i) the amount to be paid to such creditors in the

event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor

under section 53; or

(ii) the amount that would have been paid to such

creditors, if the amount to be distributed under the

resolution plan had been distributed in

accordance with the order of priority in sub-

section (1) of section 53,

whichever is higher, and provides for the payment of

debts of financial creditors, who do not vote in favour

of the resolution plan, in such manner as may be

specified by the Board, which shall not be less than

the amount to be paid to such creditors in accordance

with sub-section (1) of section 53 in the event of a

liquidation of the corporate debtor.

Explanation 1.––For the removal of doubts, it is hereby

clarified that a distribution in accordance with the

provisions of this clause shall be fair and equitable to

such creditors.

Explanation 2.––For the purposes of this clause, it is

hereby declared that on and from the date of

commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code (Amendment) Act, 2019, the provisions of this

clause shall also apply to the corporate insolvency

resolution process of a corporate debtor––

(i) where a resolution plan has not been approved

or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority;

(ii) where an appeal has been preferred under

section 61 or section 62 or such an appeal is

not time barred under any provision of law for the

time being in force; or

(iii) where a legal proceeding has been initiated in

any court against the decision of the Adjudicating

Authority in respect of a resolution plan;”

118

b) in sub-section (4), after the words “feasibility and

viability,”, the words, brackets and figures “the manner of

distribution proposed, which may take into account the

order of priority amongst creditors as laid down in sub-

section (1) of section 53, including the priority and value of

the security interest of a secured creditor” shall be

inserted.”

72.The frontal attack of Shri Sibal on Sections 4 and 6 of the

Amending Act of 2019 is that it was tailor-made to do away with the

judgment of the NCLAT in this very matter. This being so, such

legislation would be clearly outside the bounds of the legislature as

the legislature cannot interfere with a particular judgment and set it

aside.

73.There is no doubt that the Amending Act of 2019 consists of

several Sections which have been enacted/amended as difficulties

have arisen in the working of the Code. While it is true that it may

well be that the law laid down by the NCLAT in this very case

forms the basis for some of these amendments, it cannot be said

that the legislature has directly set aside the judgment of the

NCLAT. Since an appeal against the judgment of the NCLAT lies to

the Supreme Court, the legislature is well within its bounds to lay

down laws of general application to all persons affected, bearing in

mind what it considers to be a curing of a defective reading of the

law by an Appellate Tribunal. There can be no doubt whatsoever

119

that apart from the present case the amendments made by the

Amending Act of 2019 apply down the board to all persons who are

affected by its provisions. Also, it is settled law that bad faith, in the

sense of improper motives, cannot be ascribed to a legislature

making laws. This is settled law ever since the celebrated

judgment of B.K. Mukherjea,J. In K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo and

Others v. State of Orissa 1954 SCR 1. This was felicitously laid

down as follows:

“…As the question is of some importance and is likely to

be debated in similar cases in future, it would be

necessary to examine the precise scope and meaning of

what is known ordinarily as the doctrine of “colourable

legislation”.

It may be made clear at the outset that the doctrine of

colourable legislation does not involve any question of

bona fides or mala fides on the part of the legislature.

The whole doctrine resolves itself into the question of

competency of a particular legislature to enact a

particular law. If the legislature is competent to pass a

particular law, the motives which impelled it to act are

really irrelevant. On the other hand, if the legislature

lacks competency, the question of motive does not arise

at all. Whether a statute is constitutional or not is thus

always a question of power [ Vide Cooley's

Constitutional Limitations, Vol 1 p 379] . A distinction,

however, exists between a legislature which is legally

omnipotent like the British Parliament and the laws

promulgated by it which could not be challenged on the

ground of incompetence, and a legislature which enjoys

only a limited or a qualified jurisdiction. If the

Constitution of a State distributes the legislative powers

amongst different bodies, which have to act within their

respective spheres marked out by specific legislative

entries, or if there are limitations on the legislative

120

authority in the shape of fundamental rights, questions

do arise as to whether the legislature in a particular case

has or has not, in respect to the subject-matter of the

statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the

limits of its constitutional powers.”

Likewise, a 7-Judge Bench in STO v. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 SCC

98, has also clearly stated as follows:

“16. Before scanning the decisions to discover the

principle laid down therein, we may dispose of the

contention which has appealed to the High Court based

on “colourable device'. Certainly, this is a malignant

expression and when flung with fatal effect at a

representative instrumentality like the legislature,

deserves serious reflection. If, forgetting comity, the

Legislative wing charges the Judicature wing with

“colourable” judgments, it will be intolerably subversive

of the rule of law. Therefore, we too must restrain

ourselves from making this charge except in absolutely

plain cases and pause to understand the import of the

doctrine of colourable exercise of public power,

especially legislative power. In this branch of law,

“colourable” is not “tainted with bad faith or evil motive' ;

it is not pejorative or crooked. Conceptually,

“colourability” is bound up with incompetency. “Colour',

according to Black's Legal Dictionary, is “an appearance,

semblance or simulacrum, as distinguished from that

which is real ... a deceptive appearance ... a lack of

reality'. A thing is colourable which is, in appearance

only and not in reality, what it purports to be. In Indian

terms, it is maya. In the jurisprudence of power,

colourable exercise of or fraud on legislative power or,

more frightfully, fraud on the Constitution, are

expressions which merely mean that the legislature is

incompetent to enact a particular law although the label

of competency is stuck on it, and then it is colourable

legislation. It is very important to notice that if the

legislature is competent to pass the particular law, the

motives which impel it to pass the law are really

irrelevant. To put it more relevantly to the case on hand,

if a legislation, apparently enacted under one Entry in

121

the List, falls in plain truth and fact, within the content,

not of that Entry but of one assigned to another

legislature, it can be struck down as colourable even if

the motive were most commendable. In other words, the

letter of the law notwithstanding, what is the pith and

substance of the Act? Does it fall within any entry

assigned to that legislature in pith and substance, or as

covered by the ancillary powers implied in that Entry?

Can the legislation be read down reasonably to bring it

within the legislature's constitutional powers? If these

questions can be answered affirmatively, the law is valid.

Malice or motive is beside the point, and it is not

permissible to suggest parliamentary incompetence on

the score of mala fides.”

It is clear therefore for all these reasons that Sections 4 and 6 of the

Amending Act of 2019 cannot be struck down on this score.

74.So far as Section 4 is concerned, it is clear that the original

timelines in which a CIRP must be completed have now been

extended to 330 days, which is 60 days more than 180 plus 90 days

(which is equal to 270 days). But this 330-day period includes the

time taken in legal proceedings in relation to such resolution process

of the corporate debtor. This provision is to get over what is stated in

the judgment in ArcelorMittal India (supra) at paragraph 86, that the

time taken in legal proceedings in relation to the corporate resolution

process must be excluded from the timeline mentioned in Section 12.

Secondly, the third proviso added to the Section also mandates that

where the period of 330 days is over on the date of commencement

of the Amending Act of 2019, a further grace period of 90 days from

122

such date is given, within which such process shall either be

completed or the corporate debtor be sent into liquidation.

75.The raison d’être for this provision comes from the experience

that has been plaguing the legislature ever since SICA was

promulgated. The problems of SICA and other successor enactments

was stated in graphic detail in Madras Petrochem Limited v. BIFR

(2016) 4 SCC 1 at paragraphs 17 to 23. It will be seen from these

paragraphs that though SICA, the Recovery of Debts Act of 1993 and

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to

as “SARFAESI Act”) all provided for expeditious determination and

timely detection of sickness in industrial companies, yet, legal

proceedings under the same dragged on for years as a result of

which all these statutory measures proved to be abject failures in

resolving stressed assets. It is for this reason that the BLRC Report

of 2015 stated:

“In limited circumstances, if 75 % of the creditors

committee decides that the complexity of a case requires

more time for a resolution plan to be finalised, a onetime

extension of the 180 day period for up to 90 days is

possible with the prior approval of the adjudicator. This is

starkly different from certain present arrangements which

permit the debtor / promoter to seek extensions beyond

any limit.

This approach has many strengths:

123

• Asset stripping by promoters is controlled after and before

default.

• The promoters can make a proposal that involves buying

back the company for a certain price, alongside a certain

debt restructuring.

• Others in the economy can make proposals to buy the

company at a certain price, alongside a certain debt

restructuring.

• All parties knows that if no deal is struck within the

stipulated period, the company will go into liquidation. This

will help avoid delaying tactics. The inability of promoters to

steal from the company, owing to the supervision of the IP,

also helps reduce the incentive to have a slow lingering

death.

• The role of the adjudicator will be on process issues: To

ensure that all financial creditors were indeed on the

creditors committee, and that 75% of the creditors do

indeed support the resolution plan.

xxx xxx xxx

Speed is of essence

Speed is of essence for the working of the bankruptcy

code, for two reasons. First, while the „calm period can

‟

help keep an organisation afloat, without the full clarity of

ownership and control, significant decisions cannot be

made. Without effective leadership, the firm will tend to

atrophy and fail. The longer the delay, the more likely it is

that liquidation will be the only answer. Second, the

liquidation value tends to go down with time as many

assets suffer from a high economic rate of depreciation.

From the viewpoint of creditors, a good realisation can

generally be obtained if the firm is sold as a going concern.

Hence, when delays induce liquidation, there is value

destruction. Further, even in liquidation, the realisation is

lower when there are delays. Hence, delays cause value

destruction. Thus, achieving a high recovery rate is

primarily about identifying and combating the sources of

delay. This same idea is found in FSLRC’s treatment of the

failure of financial firms. The most important objective in

124

designing a legal framework for dealing with firm failure is

the need for speed.

Identifying and addressing the sources of delay

Before the IRP can commence, all parties need an

accurate and undisputed set of facts about existing credit,

collateral that has been pledged, etc. Under the present

arrangements, considerable time can be lost before all

parties obtain this information. Disputes about these facts

can take up years to resolve in court. The objective of an

IRP that is completed in no more than 180 days can be lost

owing to these problems.

Hence, the Committee envisions a competitive industry of

„information utilities who hold an array of information

‟

about all firms at all times. When the IRP commences,

within less than a day, undisputed and complete

information would become available to all persons involved

in the IRP and thus address this source of delay.

The second important source of delays lies in the

adjudicatory mechanisms. In order to address this, the

Committee recommends that the National Company Law

Tribunals (for corporate debtors) and Debt Recovery

Tribunals (for individuals and partnership firms) be provided

with all the necessary resources to help them in realising

the objectives of the Code.

xxx xxx xxx

Conclusion

The failure of some business plans is integral to the

process of the market economy. When business failure

takes place, the best outcome for society is to have a rapid

renegotiation between the financiers, to finance the going

concern using a new arrangement of liabilities and with a

new management team. If this cannot be done, the best

outcome for society is a rapid liquidation. When such

arrangements can be put into place, the market process of

creative destruction will work smoothly, with greater

competitive vigor and greater competition.”

125

76.The speech of the Hon’ble Minister on the floor of the House of

the Rajya Sabha also reflected the fact that with the passage of time

the original intent of quick resolution of stressed assets is getting

diluted. It is therefore essential to have time-bound decisions to

reinstate this legislative intent. It was also pointed out on the floor of

the House that the experience in the working of the Code has not

been encouraging. The Minister in her speech to the Rajya Sabha

gives the following facts and figures:

“Now, regarding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process (CIRP), under the Code, I want to give you data

again as of 30th June, 2019. First, I will talk about the

status of CIRPs. Number of admitted cases is 2162;

number of cases closed on appeal, which I read out about,

is 174; number of cases closed by withdrawal under

Section 12A, is 101, I have given you a slightly later data;

number of cases closed by resolution is 120; closed by

liquidation, 475; and ongoing CIRPs are 1292. So, now, I

would like to mention the number of days of waiting. I

would like to mention here the details of the ongoing

CIRPs, along with the timelines. Ongoing CIRPs are 1,292,

the figure just now I gave you. Over 330 days, 335 cases;

over 270 days, 445 cases; over 180 days and less than

270 days, 221 cases; over 90 days but less than 180 days,

349 cases; less than 90 days, 277 cases. The number of

days' pending includes time, if any, excluded by the

tribunals. So, that gives you a picture on what is the kind of

wait and, therefore, why we want to bring the Amendments

for this speeding up.”

Mrs. Madhvi Divan also pointed out that the Hon’ble Minister’s

speech had also adverted to the strengthening of the NCLT as

follows:

126

“In view of the increasing number of cases, the

Government has increased the number of benches of

NCLT from 10 to 15, during just the last one year. In one

year, we have increased it from 10 to 15. The number of

members has also been increased in a phased manner.

Recently, 26 new members have joined bringing the total

number of members to 52. Sir, more than one court has

been operationalised in the benches where a large number

of cases are pending, such as, in Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai

and Kolkata. The projects like e-governance and e-courts

have also been implemented for faster and speedier

disposal of the cases.”

77.Shri Sibal vehemently objected to any reliance on the speech of

the Minister and cited K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1982) 1 SCR 629 and

K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (1994) 5 SCC 593. In Varghese

(supra) this Court held, at page 645, as follows:

“…Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members

of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for

enacting a statutory provision is being debated are

inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory

provision but the speech made by the Mover of the Bill

explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can

certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the

mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation and the

object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted.

This is in accord with the recent trend in juristic thought not

only in western countries but also in India that

interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the

ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically

relevant should be admissible. In fact there are at least

three decisions of this Court, one in Loka Shikshana

Trust v. CIT [(1976) 1 SCC 254 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 14 : 101

ITR 234 : 1976 LR 1] , the other in Indian Chamber of

Commerce v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1976) 1 SCC

324 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 41 : 101 ITR 796 : 1976 Tax LR 210]

and the third in Additional Commissioner of Income

Tax v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers'

Association [(1980) 2 SCC 31 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 170 : 121

127

ITR 1] where the speech made by the Finance Minister

while introducing the exclusionary clause in Section 2,

clause (15) of the Act was relied upon by the Court for the

purpose of ascertaining what was the reason for

introducing that clause.”

In Paripoornan (supra), the Court held as follows:

“77. In support of the construction placed on Section 23(1-

A) of the principal Act and Section 30(1) of the amending

Act in Zora Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 673] the learned counsel

for the claimants have referred to the Statement of Objects

and Reasons appended to the Bill in 1982 as well as the

Bill of 1984 and have submitted that the said Statement of

Objects and Reasons show that the object underlying the

enactment of Section 23(1-A) was to remove the hardship

to the affected parties on account of pendency of

acquisition proceedings for a long time which renders

unrealistic the amounts of compensation offered to them.

Our attention has also been invited to the speeches made

by members at the time when the Bill was considered and

was adopted by Parliament. It has been urged that a

construction which advances the said object must be

adopted. We are unable to accept this contention. As

regards the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended

to the Bill the law is well settled that the same cannot be

used except for the limited purpose of understanding the

background and the state of affairs leading to the

legislation but it cannot be used as an aid to the

construction of the statute. (See Aswini Kumar

Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose [1953 SCR 1, 28 : AIR 1952 SC

369] ; State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose [1954 SCR 587,

628 : AIR 1954 SC 92] per Das, J.; State of W.B. v. Union

of India [(1964) 1 SCR 371, 383 : AIR 1963 SC 1241] .)

Similarly, with regard to speeches made by the members in

the House at the time of consideration of the Bill it has

been held that they are not admissible as extrinsic aids to

the interpretation of the statutory provisions though the

speech of the mover of the Bill may be referred to for the

purpose of finding out the object intended to be achieved

by the Bill. (See State of Travancore-Cochin v. Bombay Co.

Ltd. [1952 SCR 1112 : AIR 1952 SC 366] and Aswini

Kumar v. Arabinda Bose [1953 SCR 1, 28 : AIR 1952 SC

128

369] .) On a perusal of the Bills of 1982 and 1984 we find

that they did not contain the provisions found in Section

23(1-A) of the principal Act and Section 30(1) of the

amending Act. These provisions were inserted when the

1984 Bill was under consideration before Parliament. The

Statement of Objects and Reasons does not, therefore,

throw any light on the circumstances in which these

provisions were introduced.”

As the speech of the Hon’ble Minister on the floor of the House only

indicates the object for which the amendment was made and as it

contains certain data which it is useful to advert to, we take aid from

the speech not in order to construe the amended Section 12, but only

in order to explain why the Amending Act of 2019 was brought about.

78.Given the fact that timely resolution of stressed assets is a key

factor in the successful working of the Code, the only real argument

against the amendment is that the time taken in legal proceedings

cannot ever be put against the parties before the NCLT and NCLAT

based upon a Latin maxim which sub-serves the cause of justice

namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit.

79.In Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 SCC 284,

this Court applied the maxim to time taken in legal proceedings under

the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, holding:

“8. It is well-settled that no man should suffer because of

the fault of the court or delay in the procedure. Broom has

stated the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” — an

act of court shall prejudice no man. Therefore, having

regard to the time normally consumed for adjudication, the

129

ten years' exemption or holiday from the application of the

Rent Act would become illusory, if the suit has to be filed

within that time and be disposed of finally. It is common

knowledge that unless a suit is instituted soon after the

date of letting it would never be disposed of within ten

years and even then within that time it may not be disposed

of. That will make the ten years holiday from the Rent Act

illusory and provide no incentive to the landlords to build

new houses to solve problem of shortages of houses. The

purpose of legislation would thus be defeated. Purposive

interpretation in a social amelioration legislation is an

imperative irrespective of anything else.”

Likewise, in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular

Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62, this Court held that for the purpose of

computing limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint

and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, applying

the aforesaid maxim as follows:

“39. As we have already noted in reaching this conclusion,

light can be drawn from legal maxims. Legal maxims are

referred to in Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of

A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 39] , Japani

Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007)

7 SCC 394 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 388] and Vanka

Radhamanohari [Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata

Reddy, (1993) 3 SCC 4 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 571]. The object

of the criminal law is to punish perpetrators of crime. This is

in tune with the well-known legal maxim nullum tempus aut

locus occurrit regi, which means that a crime never dies. At

the same time, it is also the policy of law to assist the

vigilant and not the sleepy. This is expressed in the Latin

maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt.

Chapter XXXVI CrPC which provides limitation period for

certain types of offences for which lesser sentence is

provided draws support from this maxim. But, even certain

offences such as Section 384 or 465 IPC, which have

130

lesser punishment may have serious social consequences.

The provision is, therefore, made for condonation of delay.

Treating date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of

proceedings as the relevant date for computing limitation

under Section 468 of the Code is supported by the legal

maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which means that

the act of court shall prejudice no man. It bears repetition to

state that the court's inaction in taking cognizance i.e.

court's inaction in applying mind to the suspected offence

should not be allowed to cause prejudice to a diligent

complainant. Chapter XXXVI thus presents the interplay of

these three legal maxims. The provisions of this Chapter,

however, are not interpreted solely on the basis of these

maxims. They only serve as guiding principles.”

Both these judgments have been followed in Neeraj Kumar Sainy v.

State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 14 SCC 136 at paragraphs 29 and 32.

Given the fact that the time taken in legal proceedings cannot

possibly harm a litigant if the Tribunal itself cannot take up the

litigant’s case within the requisite period for no fault of the litigant, a

provision which mandatorily requires the CIRP to end by a certain

date - without any exception thereto - may well be an excessive

interference with a litigant’s fundamental right to non-arbitrary

treatment under Article 14 and an excessive, arbitrary and therefore

unreasonable restriction on a litigant’s fundamental right to carry on

business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. This being

the case, we would ordinarily have struck down the provision in its

entirety. However, that would then throw the baby out with the bath

water, inasmuch as the time taken in legal proceedings is certainly an

131

important factor which causes delay, and which has made previous

statutory experiments fail as we have seen from Madras Petrochem

(supra). Thus, while leaving the provision otherwise intact, we strike

down the word “mandatorily” as being manifestly arbitrary under

Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as being an excessive and

unreasonable restriction on the litigant’s right to carry on business

under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The effect of this declaration

is that ordinarily the time taken in relation to the corporate resolution

process of the corporate debtor must be completed within the outer

limit of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date, including

extensions and the time taken in legal proceedings. However, on the

facts of a given case, if it can be shown to the Adjudicating Authority

and/or Appellate Tribunal under the Code that only a short period is

left for completion of the insolvency resolution process beyond 330

days, and that it would be in the interest of all stakeholders that the

corporate debtor be put back on its feet instead of being sent into

liquidation and that the time taken in legal proceedings is largely due

to factors owing to which the fault cannot be ascribed to the litigants

before the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal, the delay

or a large part thereof being attributable to the tardy process of the

Adjudicating Authority and/or the Appellate Tribunal itself, it may be

open in such cases for the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate

132

Tribunal to extend time beyond 330 days. Likewise, even under the

newly added proviso to Section 12, if by reason of all the aforesaid

factors the grace period of 90 days from the date of commencement

of the Amending Act of 2019 is exceeded, there again a discretion

can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate

Tribunal to further extend time keeping the aforesaid parameters in

mind. It is only in such exceptional cases that time can be extended,

the general rule being that 330 days is the outer limit within which

resolution of the stressed assets of the corporate debtor must take

place beyond which the corporate debtor is to be driven into

liquidation.

80.When it comes to the validity of the substitution of Section 30(2)

(b) by Section 6 of the Amending Act of 2019, it is clear that the

substituted Section 30(2)(b) gives operational creditors something

more than was given earlier as it is the higher of the figures

mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-clause (b) that is now to

be paid as a minimum amount to operational creditors. The same

goes for the latter part of sub-clause (b) which refers to dissentient

financial creditors. Mrs. Madhavi Divan is correct in her argument that

Section 30(2)(b) is in fact a beneficial provision in favour of

operational creditors and dissentient financial creditors as they are

133

now to be paid a certain minimum amount, the minimum in the case

of operational creditors being the higher of the two figures calculated

under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b), and the minimum in the

case of dissentient financial creditor being a minimum amount that

was not earlier payable. As a matter of fact, pre-amendment, secured

financial creditors may cramdown unsecured financial creditors who

are dissentient, the majority vote of 66% voting to give them nothing

or next to nothing for their dues. In the earlier regime it may have

been possible to have done this but after the amendment such

financial creditors are now to be paid the minimum amount mentioned

in sub-section (2). Mrs. Madhavi Divan is also correct in stating that

the order of priority of payment of creditors mentioned in Section 53 is

not engrafted in sub-section (2)(b) as amended. Section 53 is only

referred to in order that a certain minimum figure be paid to different

classes of operational and financial creditors. It is only for this

purpose that Section 53(1) is to be looked at as it is clear that it is the

commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors that is free to

determine what amounts be paid to different classes and sub-classes

of creditors in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the

Regulations made thereunder.

134

81.As has been held in this judgment, it is clear that Explanation 1

has only been inserted in order that the Adjudicating Authority and the

Appellate Tribunal cannot enter into the merits of a business decision

of the requisite majority of the Committee of Creditors. As has also

been held in this judgment, there is no residual equity jurisdiction in

the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal to interfere in the

merits of a business decision taken by the requisite majority of the

Committee of Creditors, provided that it is otherwise in conformity

with the provisions of the Code and the Regulations, as has been laid

down by this judgment.

82.Equally, Explanation 2 applies the substituted Section to

pending proceedings either at the level of the Adjudicating Authority

or the Appellate Authority or in a Writ or Civil Court. As has been held

in Swiss Ribbons (supra) and ArcelorMittal India (supra) (see

paragraph 97 of Swiss Ribbons (supra) and paragraph 82, 84 of

ArcelorMittal India (supra)), no vested right inheres in any resolution

applicant to have its plan approved under the Code. Also, the Federal

Court in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri

AIR 1941 FC 5 and later, this Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing

Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 659 (at

paragraphs 16 and 17) have held that an appellate proceeding is a

135

continuation of an original proceeding. This being so, a change in law

can always be applied to an original or appellate proceeding. For this

reason also, Explanation 2 is constitutionally valid, not having any

retrospective operation so as to impair vested rights.

83.The challenge to sub-clause (b) of Section 6 of the Amending

Act of 2019, again goes to the flexibility that the Code gives to the

Committee of Creditors to approve or not to approve a resolution plan

and which may take into account different classes of creditors as is

mentioned in Section 53, and different priorities and values of security

interests of a secured creditor. This flexibility is referred to in the

BLRC report, 2015 (see paragraph 33 of this judgment). Also, the

discretion given to the Committee of Creditors by the word “may”

again makes it clear that this is only a guideline which is set out by

this sub-section which may be applied by the Committee of Creditors

in arriving at a business decision as to acceptance or rejection of a

resolution plan. For all these reasons, therefore, it is difficult to hold

that any of these provisions is constitutionally infirm.

The resolution plan of ArcelorMittal as amended and objections

thereto

84.The resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal on 02.04.2018

proposed an upfront payment of INR 35,000 crores towards

136

resolution of the debt of INR 49,213 crores of financial creditors. This

was buttressed by a letter of commitment from Credit Agricole

Corporate and Investment Bank. From this upfront cash recovery,

unsecured financial creditors were to be paid only an aggregate

amount of 5% of their admitted claims. Apart from this, INR 8,000

crores of upfront fresh capital infusion for improving operations and

enhancing revival prospects of the corporate debtor was also

proposed. So far as operational creditors were concerned, it was

proposed that workmen and employees were to be paid INR 18

crores in full against their admitted claims, and out of other

operational creditors, those small trade creditors defined as “having

admitted claims of less than INR 1 crore” were to be paid in full, as

opposed to trade and government creditors of over INR 1 crore, who

were to be paid aggregate amount INR 196 crores. Other operational

creditors were to be given nothing, liquidation value being payable to

operational creditors as a class being in any case nil (INR 3339

crores were the aggregate admitted claims of all operational creditors

as a class). Under the caption “Treatment of various stake holders”

the plan provided as follows:-

“VIII. Treatment of Various Stakeholders”

xxx xxx xxx

137

Stakeholder Proposed Treatment

Financial

Creditors

As per the Liquidation Value of

the Corporate Debtor, the

Secured Financial Creditors

would realize amounts which

were lower than the current

outstandings on a cumulative

basis. However, the

Resolution Applicant

recognizes the sacrifices

already made by the Financial

Creditors till date and the fact

that debt restructuring

attempts by the Financial

Creditors have failed in the

past. The Resolution Applicant

is proposing to pay the

Secured Financial Creditors,

the amounts stated under

Section V which is significantly

higher than the reconvenes

that the Secured Financial

Creditors as a class would

realize in case of liquidation.

The payments proposed to be

made by the Resolution

Applicant to the unsecured

Financial Creditors is also

higher than the recoveries that

the unsecured Financial

Creditors as a class would

realize in case of liquidation,

since the Liquidation Value

realizable by unsecured

Financial Creditors is nil.

The Resolution Applicant has

empowered the Committee of

Creditors to decide the

manner in which the financial

138

package being offered by the

Resolution Applicant to the

Financial Creditors will be

distributed to the Secured

Financial Creditors. All such

allocations to the Financial

Creditors will be binding on all

stakeholders.

The unsecured Financial

Creditors (including those

Secured Financial Creditors

who may have claims

admitted against unsecured

instruments) i.e. Standard

Chartered Bank. The Bank of

New York Mellon, London

Branch, AXIS bank, ICICI

Bank. Bank of Baroda, SBI

Rupee Notes and Individual

Rupee Notes to Melwani

Gopal Thrumal and /or

Melwani Vinod, Mr. Arvinlal N

Shah & Mrs. Indumati A Shah,

Mr. jiwat k Dansanghani and

Mrs. Neetu J Dhansanghani

and Nathu Ram Verma, who

have Admitted claims as of 28

February 2018 (based on

document 2.5.8 uploaded on

VDR on 6 March 2018 which

provides Breakup of Secured

and Unsecured financial

Creditors), shall be paid an

aggregate amount of 5% of

their Admitted Claims.

Furthermore, in accordance

with the RFP, it is clarified

that:

139

a)any surplus cash

being the positive

difference between

actual working capital of

the Corporate Debtor as

on Plan Approval Date

and normalized working

capital as at 31

December 2017, shall

be added to upfront

cash recovery as a

closing adjustment

under the Resolution

Plan; and

b)the EBITDA

generated by the

Corporate Debtor

between the Plan

Approval Date and the

date on which the

Financial Creditors are

paid the up-front cash

amount shall be

available to the Financial

Creditors over and

above the upfront cash

recovery under the

Resolution Plan.

However, notwithstanding

anything stated herein, a

Dissenting Financial Creditor

will be entitled to only receive

Liquidation Value realizable by

such Financial Creditor in

case of liquidation of the

Corporate Debtor, which shall

be paid out of the upfront cash

recovery amount being

offered.

140

Operational

Creditors (other

than Workmen,

Employees and

Governmental

Operational

Creditors)

The Resolution Applicant

recognizes the role that the

various Trade Creditors have

played in connection with the

business of the Corporate

Debtor. Whilst Operational

Creditors as a class of

Creditors would receive nil

returns on liquidation of the

Corporate Debtor, the

Resolution Applicant has

agreed to settle part of the

Admitted Claims to the extent

set out in Section V above.

Without prejudice to the

above, the Resolution

Applicant is desirous of setting

aside amounts under the

financial package to settle at

least part of the Claims of the

small Trade Creditors. This

class of Trade Creditors are

being provided such payments

since the Resolution applicant

understands that these

Persons typically form a part

of small scale/medium sector

enterprises, which enterprises

play a key role in the Indian

economy and given their scale

of operations may not be in a

position to weather

macroeconomic and financial

shocks.

The identified Trade Creditors

are being paid out on the

assumption that they will

continue their arrangements

with the Corporate Debtor and

shall in no manner commit any

acts or omissions which would

adversely impact the business

141

of the Corporate Debtor.

Acceptance of payments by

the Trade Creditors shall be

considered as an acceptance

of the above condition.

The Resolution Applicant

recognizes and understands

that additional payment to

certain Operational Creditors

may have to be made as a

part of revitalising the

business and is prepared to

do so, on a case by case

basis.

Governmental

Operational

Creditors

The Resolution Applicant aims

at establishing a good working

relationship between the

Governmental Authorities and

the Corporate Debtor and will

cause the Corporate Debtor to

duly pay the statutory dues

that will be incurred by the

Corporate Debtor going

forward from the Plan

Approval Date in a timely

manner. The revival of the

Corporate Debtor will also

enhance the tax collection by

the Governmental Authorities

in the geographies where the

Corporate Debtor operates.

85.On 22.10.2018, various changes were made in the original

resolution plan as follows:

“The representatives of AM India of AM India thanked the

RP. Thereafter, they presented a brief summary of the

revisions made to the financial proposal. They informed

that as per the directives of the CoC, AM India had

deliberated and negotiated with the Sub-Committee.

142

Thereafter, the representative highlighted certain key

revisions made to the resolution plan, which inter alia

included revisions in relation to (a) upfront cash recovery

available to secured and unsecured financial creditors of

ESIL; (b) upfront fresh capital infusion; (c) process of

closing adjustment, which included provision of audit. He

further added that they had not provided how the upfront

cash would be distributed and the same has been left at

the discretion of the CoC. He further added that the

business plan has not undergone any substantial changes

and the negotiations were largely around the financial

proposal and that AM India is committed to implement the

plan, as agreed. Thereafter, the representative of AM India

also deliberated with the members of the CoC regarding

the revised financial proposal and responded to the queries

raised in relation thereto.”

It was stated that the value and quality of security should be the basis

on which proceeds should be distributed by most of the secured

financial creditors. This amended resolution plan was approved by a

majority of 92.24% of financial creditors. The sharing ratio between

secured financial creditors having charge on project assets of the

corporate debtor was 99.86% as opposed to 0.14%, so far as

Standard Chartered Bank was concerned, which only had a charge

on the pledge of shares of ESOL, being an offshore subsidiary of the

corporate debtor. The upfront payment to secured financial creditors

on the effective date would now be INR 41,909.29 crores and INR

60.71 crores to Standard Chartered Bank. It was pointed out that this

was based on the worth of those shares as security, being only INR

143

24.86 crores. The reasons given for acceptance of this amended

resolution plan was stated as follows:

“By majority consensus of COC (except Standard Chartered

Bank and SREI), it was agreed that fairness of distribution

would be reflected only if distribution be made based on

underlying security value and quality of security. Based on a

comparison of the two suggested options based on fair

value and liquidation value, in the interest of all stake

holders and with the objective of the Code it is proposed to

the COC to accept the sharing ratio as per the Liquidation

Valuation Report and also to Secured Financial Creditors

having Charge on Project Asset of ESIL for taking a sacrifice

of Rs.37.76 Crores (for adopting the sharing ratio as per the

Liquidation Valuation Report instead of fair value) which

shall be allocated to Secured Financial Creditors having

Charge on Pledge of Shares of ESOL.

While allocation of the Resolution Amount it is pertinent to

note that the Committee of creditors has the widest

discretion to determine the terms of the resolution plan.

A. At the outset it is important to be noted that the

legislature in their wisdom under the provisions of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) have left

the decision-making in respect of commercial matters

completely in the domain of the Committee of Creditors

(COC). In fact even the Bankruptcy Law Reforms

Committee report (which formed the basis for the

enactment of the Code) specifically notes the deliberate

scheme of the Code, where the law does not prescribe any

particular manner of insolvency resolution and leaves this

commercial decision making process to the COC without

the interference of the legislature as well as judiciary.

B. Further, pro rate distribution cannot be the only method

of distribution of assets, as it would lead to the disastrous

consequences where the creditors would lose their

freedom to restructure the debt as they deem fit. This an

important commercial decision which is required to be

made by the Code and a strait jacket formula for all cases

would result in dilution of the provisions of the Code and

144

would incentivize all secured creditors to liquidate the

company rather than opt for resolution. It was noted that

generally all secured financial creditors are prudent entities

which grant loans after exercising due-diligence and are

presumed to be able to evaluate their interest and risks

sufficiently. Moreover it may negatively impact the credit

market and discourage banks and other financial creditors

from granting large project loans which are more often than

not granted against property or other valuable collateral.

C. The Report of the Insolvency Law Committee provides

valuable insights on the principles governing inter-creditor

agreements and their relevance to distribution

arrangements. In practice, subordination agreements inter-

se creditors were respected in practice. This was also the

stated position in insolvency resolution proceedings other

jurisdiction and in other developed countries.

D. The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

has held that the COC has the discretion to approve any

resolution plan and its decision to approve the same

cannot be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority or

the Appellate Authority, except for in terms of Section 31(1)

to examine compliance of Section 30(2) read with relevant

regulations. (See Kannan Tiruvengandram Vs. M.K. Shah

Exports Ltd. & Ors. in and Darshak Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. and

Ors. v. Chhaparia Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

E. The Code specifically provides the COC with the power

under section 30(4) of the Code, to approve a resolution

with requisite majority as set out thereunder. It is an

accepted position in law, and as enunciated in various

pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India that where

a power is conferred or a duty is imposed by a statute, and

there is nothing expressly inhibiting the exercise of the

power or the performance of the duty by any limitations or

restrictions it is reasonable to hold that it carries with it all

power of doing all such acts or employing all such means

as are reasonably necessary for its execution. The below

mentioned provisions of the Code and the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process

145

for Corporate Persons). Regulation 2016 (CIR Regulations)

set out the powers of the COC in this regard:

Section 31 of the Code (Approval of Resolution Plan):

“(1) If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the

resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors

under sub-section (4) of section 30 meets the requirements

as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 30, it shall by

order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on

the corporate debtor and its employees, members,

creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the

resolution plan.

Regulation 39 of the CIR Regulations, 2016;

“(2) The resolution professional shall present all resolution

plans that meet the requirements of the Code and these

Regulations to the Committee for its consideration.

(3) The committee may approve any resolution plan with

such modifications as it deems fit

xxx xxx xxx

K. It is a recognized principle of insolvency law that creditor

rights and ranking of priority claims existing before

commencement of insolvency must be recognized and

respected in the insolvency proceedings. Recognition of

such ranking of priorities of existing and post-

commencement creditor claims provide predictability to

lenders and ensure consistent application of the rules,

create confidence in the proceedings and enable

participants to adopt appropriate measures to manage risk.

At macro level, it helps create certainty in the market and

facilitate the provision of credit, in particular with respect to

the rights and priorities of secured creditors. It is also well

established that best practices require that priority to claims

that are not based on commercial bargains should be

minimalized. This principle is unequivocally articulated in

the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law

(UNCITRAL) Legislative Guide on Insolvency law

(hereinafter, the “UNCITRAL Guide”) in the chapter that

146

recommends the policy and legislative design of the “key

objectives and structure of an effective and efficient

insolvency law”

L. Further, in recognition of the principle that creditor rights

and ranking of priority claims existing before

commencement of insolvency must be recognised and

expected in the insolvency proceedings. To protect/respect

the creditor rights and ranking of priority claims, the IBC

does not in any manner impose any prescription,

mandatory or otherwise on the resolution applicant that

would be disruptive of the creditor rights and priority claims

of the secured creditors as on insolvency commencement

date. If this rule was not to be recognised, it will lead to a

free-for-all situation, no short of chaos, as any rights on

differential security interest would then be ignored.

M. Therefore in conclusion, since the Code provides the

COC with the power to approve a resolution for the

Corporate Debtor, the manner in which such resolution

shall be executed including but not limited to the decision

as to the methodology of distribution or the amount a

money to be paid to individual stakeholders would also be

a decision which the COC would be permitted to take,

especially in the absence of any express provision in the

Code prohibiting such a decision by the COC. As long as

such decisions are not contrary to the provisions of the

Code.”

86.The final resolution plan as approved on 23.10.2018 was as

follows - in the place of INR 35,000 crores to be paid on the effective

date as an upfront amount, INR 39,500 crores and INR 2500 crores,

aggregating INR 42,000 crores was to be paid. The resolution

applicant agreed that the Committee of Creditors will decide the

manner in which the financial package being offered by the resolution

applicant to financial creditors will be distributed to secured financial

147

creditors. The payment of INR 17.4 crore was to be made to

unsecured financial creditors with a claim amount of more than INR

10 lakhs, and INR 30.55 lakhs to such creditors with a claim amount

of less than INR 10 lakhs, with the fresh capital infusion for improving

operations and enhancing revival prospects of the corporate debtor

remaining at INR 8,000 crores. So far as operational creditors were

concerned, there was no change made.

87.At the 22

nd

meeting of the Committee of Creditors dated

27.03.2019, the NCLT order of 08.03.2019 was discussed and it was

felt that INR 1,000 crores extra be paid for operational creditors over

and above INR 1 crore each, as follows:

“The representative of EARC mentioned that without

prejudice to the appeals, a lump sum amount may be set-

aside and put to vote as they are not averse to examining

it. The representative of SBI concurred with the views of

the representative of EARC. He further mentioned that

CoC as well as SCB has challenged the NCLT Order. SBI

proposed to set aside a capped amount of INR 1,000 Crore

for operational creditors (without prejudice to their right to

appeal). He requested that a resolution to that effect may

be voted upon.

The RP requested the SBI representative to clarify if the

proposed amount of INR 1,000 Crore would be over and

above the INR 196 Crore which is already included in the

Resolution Plan for operational creditors. The SBI

representative confirmed that the same would be over and

above the current proposal, however this additional amount

will be capped to INR 1,000 crores.”

148

Under the caption “discussion on the suggestions of the Hon’ble

NCLT in relation to distribution of amounts proposed to be paid to

financial creditors”, the minutes of the meeting reflect that the

Committee of Creditors had sought for and obtained the opinion of

retired Justice B.N. Srikrishna. This opinion dated 23.03.2019 stated

as follows:

“In view of this peculiar situation, where a financial creditor

has advanced money to the corporate debtor assessing the

commercial risk and covers his risk by a charge on the

assets of the corporate debtor, there can be no question of

his being entitled to the liquidation value or any other fixed

value towards his debt. In any event, the plan formulated

by the resolution applicant, has to be placed before the

COC for its final approval. It is at that juncture the

commercial wisdom of lenders forming the COC comes

into play and they are entitled to take a call on either to

approve or not to approve the resolution plan which the

FRP has put forward before the COC for its approval. In my

view, therefore, the Approved Resolution Plan would be

fully justified in classifying between secured and unsecured

financial creditor, and also according to the value of their

securities and apportioning the amounts payable to them in

the best manner which is considered reasonable. I might

add here that irrespective of what the RP considers as

reasonable, it is always open to the COC to adjudge the

commercial wisdom of the resolution plan while approving

it. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar vs

Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10673 of

2018) such commercial decision of the COC is not subject

to appeal under the Code.

In the premises, I am of the opinion that SCB was

differently placed than other financial creditors in view of

the fact it did not have any charge or security on the project

assets but had advanced a large amount of loan amounting

to Rs.3000 crores on the basis of the pledge over the

shares of an offshore company and a corporate guarantee

149

extended by the Corporate Debtor. The resolution plan as

finally approved by COC was fully justified in treating SCB

as differently placed based on the cogent and intelligible

differentia that is apparent from the facts of the case. I see

nothing in the provisions of the Code of the Regulations

which would militate against the decision taken by the

COC.

I might add here that the commercial wisdom of the lenders

who are voting for the resolution of the COC is evidenced

by the fact that they had created securities on the project

assets of the Corporate Debtor after assessing the

commercial risk involved. In the case of SCB, however,

there seems to have been gross under security for the

large amount of Rs.3000 crores by merely seeking a

corporate guarantee from the Corporate Debtor along with

a charge only on the shares of the offshore company held

by the Corporate Debtor, wherein the liquidation value of

such shares is a mere Rs.60.71 crores. In fact, in view of

the fact situation, I find it hard to understand whether SCB

can really be treated as a secured creditor in the first place.

I am of the opinion that even if the corporate guarantee

were to be enforced, SCB would at best stand as a

secured creditor only to the extent of the value of the

shares of the offshore company as on the date of

enforcement of the guarantee and as an unsecured

creditor with respect to the rest of the loan advanced by it.

This is an equally valid consideration which might have

moved the COC while approving the resolution plan by

which the ultimate discretion for distribution is left to the

COC with a declaration that such allocation to the financial

creditors will be binding on all stake holders, which also

would include SCB.

xxx xxx xxx

In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the

manner in which the resolution plan was formulated and

approved by the overwhelming majority of 92.24% of the

voting creditors, is not only perfectly justified but is also

equitable. As the Supreme Court has pointed out in Swiss

Ribbons (supra), “equitable” does not mean equal

distribution; it means distribution which does justice to

every stakeholders involved in the process. In my opinion,

150

mere equal distribution would definitely do injustice to the

large majority of 92.24% shareholders who in their

commercial wisdom had ensured that the security was

created on project assets, while SCB was content with

creating a charge only on the shares of the offshore

company and seeking a corporate guarantee from the

Corporate Debtor.”

88.The aforesaid opinion was shared with all Committee of

Creditors members including Standard Chartered Bank. Importantly,

the minutes record:

“At this point, the representative from Canara Bank stated

that he requires clarity on the following questions before he

can consider the revised apportionment to SCB: (a)

Whether any NOCs were taken from the lenders before

taking corporate guarantee, as it is a financial covenant in

the sanctions of the lenders? (b) When SCB had funded

Essar Steel Offshore Ltd. (ESOL), whether SCB had not

taken security of Trinity coal mines as collateral, and the

cash flows and credentials from the assets as security? (c)

What is the end-use of the loan and was that end-use

ensured? At what stage is the project? Were the funds

really invested in the project?

xxx xxx xxx

The representatives of SCB raised issue of valuation and

mentioned that value of above INR 24 crores of ESOL

shares has not been estimated appropriately and is

erroneous. The value has been estimated based on

desktop valuation and the valuer has not considered

valuation of underlying assets. A valuation report of equity

of Trinity was shared by RP after receipt of same from

Corporate Debtor which shows value in excess of USD 600

mn.

xxx xxx xxx

Further, the representatives of EARC added that they

required clarify as to whether the underlying loans has

been enforced against the principal borrower and whether

any money has been recovered from the principal

151

borrower. SCB representative replied that these questions

were not relevant at this time and they were choosing not

to answer these questions. SBI representative pointed out

that these questions have been raised earlier and SCB has

never replied to these queries.

xxx xxx xxx

After several requests of the lenders, it was noted that SCB

declined to share the documents and did not answer any of

the questions as asked by the members of the CoC stating

that the same were irrelevant at this stage.

xxx xxx xxx

ICICI Bank also stated that it should be recorded that SCB

rejected offer of INR 200 crores was not considered by

SCB. The representative of SBI mentioned that the

proposal offered by ICICI Bank in its individual capacity and

not by other lenders. The representative of SCB mentioned

it is evident that the offer was only hypothetical.

It was also suggested by EARC that revised distribution to

SCB matter as per NCLT Order should also be voted upon

and the other lenders concurred with the same.”

(emphasis supplied)

Finally, the allocation of INR 1,000 crore extra to operational creditors

was approved by a majority of 70.73% of the Committee of Creditors.

89.Given the aforesaid facts, Shri Sibal’s submissions on behalf of

Standard Chartered Bank, that the offer made by ArcelorMittal of

payment of INR 42,000 crores as upfront in order to pay 100%

principal outstanding of secured financial creditors of the corporate

debtor cannot be accepted. Given that Standard Chartered Bank was

reclassified as a secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor

only on 10.09.2018 and that the aforesaid upfront payment of INR

152

42,000 crores would include the principal amount payable to

Standard Chartered Bank as well, we have seen how in the course of

negotiation, the vast majority of financial creditors have ultimately

decided that Standard Chartered Bank will only get an amount based

on its security interest, which was accepted by ArcelorMittal. Shri

Sibal also argued that the final resolution plan ultimately offered a

sum of INR 39,500 crores instead of INR 42,000 crores, being a

minimum upfront payment from which it was possible to negotiate

upwards but not downwards. We cannot arrive at the conclusion that

the acceptance of the resolution plan by the majority of the

Committee of Creditors should be set aside on this score, inter alia,

for the reason that Shri Sibal assured us that he was not attacking the

acceptance of the revised plan but only distribution of amounts

payable under the said plan. This being so, it is also not possible to

accept the submission of Shri Sibal, that “feasibility and viability” of a

resolution plan will not include distribution of the amount of debt

under the said plan. It is also not possible to accept Shri Sibal’s

submission that the resolution plan must itself provide for distribution

inter se between secured financial creditors. It is enough that under

the Code and the Regulations, the resolution plan provides for

distribution of amounts payable towards debts based upon a

classification of various types of creditors. This both the original plan

153

as well as the negotiated plan of ArcelorMittal have already done, as

has been seen by us hereinabove, both plans containing the amount

to be paid to workmen separately, operational creditors of INR 1 crore

and less separately, operational creditors of INR 1 crore and over

separately and financial creditors, subdivided into secured and

unsecured as sub-classes, separately. All that was left for distribution

by ArcelorMittal was distribution inter se between secured financial

creditors which was then done by a majority of 92.24%, as has been

seen above based upon the value of their respective security

interests. Therefore, the allegation that the Committee of Creditors

relieved ArcelorMittal from the solemn offer made before the Supreme

Court by reducing the offer amount of INR 42,000 crores by INR

2,500 crores so that ArcelorMittal could acquire the debts of OSPIL, is

again a matter for negotiation being a business decision taken by the

Committee of Creditors with ArcelorMittal. In any case ultimately INR

35,000 crores was upped to INR 42,000 crores, it being made clear in

the final resolution plan that upfront payment of INR 42,000 crores is

a committed amount, even if working capital adjustment turns out to

be below INR 2,500 crores.

90.Shri Sibal also made an alternative submission that on the facts

of this case, a half-way house can be found so that Standard

154

Chartered Bank would get payment of something more above the

value of its security interest. The argument is that, assuming, whilst

denying, that classification amongst secured financial creditors is

permissible, such classification should be on the liquidation value of

the security enjoyed by the creditor and the balance distributed to all

secured financial creditors pro-rata. This methodology of distribution

has, according to him, been applied in State Bank of India v. Orissa

Manganese and Minerals Ltd. CA(IB) No. 391/KB/2018, approved

by the NCLT and not disturbed by the NCLAT. Therefore, it is argued

that, applying the aforesaid classification, the average liquidation

value of the security in the instant case, is to be as per the report of

DUFF & Phelps and RBSA, being a sum of INR 15,838 crores. This,

according to him, is the amount required to be distributed to the

secured financial creditors according to the value of their respective

security interests (viz. first charge, second charge, subservient

charge, residuary charge, etc.) and the balance to be distributed pro-

rata amongst all financial creditors irrespective of their security. The

sum of INR 42,000 crores offered by ArcelorMittal would therefore,

according to him, be a sum of INR 15,838 crores paid over to the

secured financial creditors according to the value of their security and

the balance amount of INR 26,162 crores would then have to be

distributed amongst all financial creditors on a pro-rata basis.

155

91.What is important to note is that when one reads the

abovementioned judgment, it is a majority of 66% of the Committee of

Creditors who has exercised the discretion vested in it under the

Code in this particular manner, which has then correctly not been

disturbed by the NCLT and NCLAT. Far from helping Shri Sibal’s

client, the principle that is applied in such a case is that ultimately it is

the commercial wisdom of the requisite majority of the Committee of

Creditors that must prevail on the facts of any given case, which

would include distribution in the manner suggested in Orissa

Manganese (supra). It is, therefore, not possible to accept the

argument that the Adjudicatory Authority and consequently the

Appellate Authority would be vested with the discretion to apply what

was applied by the Committee of Creditors in the Orissa Manganese

case (supra). This submission is also devoid of merit and is,

therefore, rejected.

92.The other argument of Shri Sibal that Section 53 of the Code

would be applicable only during liquidation and not at the stage of

resolving insolvency is correct. Section 30(2)(b) of the Code refers to

Section 53 not in the context of priority of payment of creditors, but

only to provide for a minimum payment to operational creditors.

However, this again does not in any manner limit the Committee of

156

Creditors from classifying creditors as financial or operational and as

secured or unsecured. Full freedom and discretion has been given,

as has been seen hereinabove, to the Committee of Creditors to so

classify creditors and to pay secured creditors amounts which can be

based upon the value of their security, which they would otherwise be

able to realise outside the process of the Code, thereby stymying the

corporate resolution process itself.

93.The other argument based upon serious conflict of interest

between secured and unsecured financial creditors, as the majority

may get together to ride roughshod over the minority, is an argument

which flies in the face of the majority of financial creditors being given

complete discretion over feasibility and viability of resolution plans,

which includes the manner of distribution of debts that is contained in

them, subject to following the provisions of the Code relating, inter

alia, to dealing with the interests of all stakeholders including

operational creditors. The Committee of Creditors does not act in any

fiduciary capacity to any group of creditors, as is sought to be

suggested by Shri Sibal. On the contrary, it is to take a business

decision based upon ground realities by a majority, which then binds

all stakeholders, including dissentient creditors. It is important to note

that the original threshold required by way of majority was 75%. It is

157

during the working of the Code that this was found to be unrealistic

and therefore reduced to 66% - see the amendments made to

Section 28(3) and 30(4) of the Code by the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act of 2018. For all these

reasons therefore, it is not possible to accept Shri Sibal’s arguments.

94. The NCLAT judgment which substitutes its wisdom for the

commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors and which also

directs the admission of a number of claims which was done by the

resolution applicant, without prejudice to its right to appeal against the

aforesaid judgment, must therefore be set aside.

95.So far as Civil Appeal No. 6409 of 2019 is concerned, we have

perused paragraphs 70 to 76 of the impugned NCLAT judgment to

the effect that the cheques issued by the corporate debtor due to its

payment obligation towards Bhandar Power Limited were not issued

with a view to secure any payment obligation of the principal borrower

i.e. EPGL, is a finding of fact which dislodges the claim of this

appellant to be regarded as a financial creditor. We find no infirmity in

the aforesaid finding. This appeal is consequently dismissed.

96.So far as Civil Appeal Diary No. 36838 is concerned, we have

perused the relevant documents and paragraphs 63 and 64 of the

impugned NCLAT judgment and find that the NCLAT has erred

158

inasmuch as it has added the claim of this Appellant to the tune of

INR 861.19 crore despite the fact that the claim had already been

admitted by the resolution professional thereby resulting in a double

counting of the debt of this Appellant. This being the position, we find

it necessary to set aside this part of the impugned NCLAT judgment

as well.

97.So far as Civil Appeal No. 6266 of 2019, we have perused

paragraphs 78 to 81 of the impugned NCLAT judgment and find no

reason to dislodge the finding of the NCLAT that the claim was filed

by the Appellant after the approval of the resolution plan. However,

the NCLAT’s finding that the said claim is subject to arbitration and

that it was open for the Appellant to pursue the matter in terms of

Section 60(6) of the Code deserves to be aside in terms of this

judgment. This Appeal is consequently disposed of.

98.So far as Civil Appeal No. 6269 of 2019 is concerned, we have

perused paragraphs 83, 84 and 196 of the impugned NCLAT

judgment and find force in the contention of the Appellant that there

has been an error in the impugned NCLAT judgment in as much as it

notes the claim amount, as admitted, as being a sum of INR 124.88

crores, but later in the same judgment notes the said amount as INR

2.47 crores based on a chart submitted by the resolution

159

professional. This chart submitted by the resolution professional

specifies the amount of INR 2.47 crore (added after the NCLT

judgment dated 08.03.2019), which is in addition to the amount of

INR 124.88 crores already admitted by the resolution professional.

Therefore, the NCLAT has erred in noting INR 2.47 crore amount as

the amount of the Appellant’s claim, and this part of the judgment also

deserves to be set aside. Thus, the claim of the appellant shall be the

claim as admitted and registered by the resolution professional. This

apart, we find no merit in the submission of the Appellant with respect

to the sum of INR 121.72 crores as the same has been rightly

rejected by the NCLAT in view of the fact that the said claim was filed

after the completion of the CIRP period. However, the NCLAT’s

judgment inasmuch as it left it open for the Appellant to pursue the

matter in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code deserves to be aside in

terms of this judgment. This Appeal is thus partly allowed.

99.So far as Civil Appeal No. 7266 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No.

7260 of 2019 are concerned, the resolution professional has rejected

the claim of the Appellants on the ground of non-availability of duly

stamped agreements in support of their claim and the failure to

furnish proof of making payment of requisite stamp duty as per the

Indian Stamp Act despite repeated reminders having been sent by

160

the resolution professional. The application filed by the Appellants

before the NCLT came to be dismissed by an order dated 14.02.2019

on the ground of non-prosecution. The subsequent restoration

application filed by the appellants then came to be rejected by the

NCLT through judgment dated 08.03.2019 on two grounds: one, that

the applications could not be entertained at such a belated stage; and

two, that notwithstanding the aforementioned reason, the claim had

no merit in view of the failure to produce duly stamped agreements.

The impugned NCLAT judgment, at paragraphs 93 and 94, upheld

the finding of the NCLT and the resolution professional. In view of

these concurrent findings, the claim of the Appellants therefore

requires no interference. Further, the submission of the Appellants

that they have now paid the requisite stamp duty, after the impugned

NCLAT judgment, would not assist the case of the Appellants at this

belated stage. These appeals are therefore dismissed.

100.So far as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1064 of 2019 is concerned, we

have perused the relevant documents and paragraph 36 of the

impugned NCLAT judgment and find force in the contention of the

Writ Petitioner that the NCLAT has wrongly noted that the claim

amount was notionally admitted by the resolution professional at INR

1 only. The resolution professional has admitted the claim of the Writ

161

Petitioner to a tune of INR 17.09 crore and the same is recorded in

the list of creditors prepared by the resolution professional. In view of

the same, this part of the NCLAT judgment is thus erroneous and the

claim shall be the claim as admitted and registered by the resolution

professional. The Writ Petition is thus allowed to this extent.

101.So far as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1049 of 2019 is concerned,

the Petitioner is admittedly the operational creditor of one Wind World

India Ltd whose CIRP proceedings are pending before the NCLT,

Ahmedabad. The Petitioner has inter alia sought for permission to

raise various issues arising out of the facts of its own case (which has

been raised before us herein) in the matter pending before the NCLT.

In view of the fact that this judgment has not opined on the merits of

the case of the Writ Petitioner pending before the NCLT, it is open to

the Writ Petitioner to raise all contentions as permissible under the

applicable law before the NCLT in the pending proceedings. This Writ

Petition is thus allowed to this extent.

102.So far as Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. (Respondent No. 11 in Civil

Appeal Diary No. 24417 of 2019), State Tax Officer (Respondent No.

12 in Civil Appeal Diary No. 24417 of 2019), Gujarat Energy

Transmission Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No. 17 in Civil Appeal

Diary No. 24417 of 2019) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

162

(Respondent No. 18 in Civil Appeal Diary No. 24417 of 2019) are

concerned, the resolution professional admitted the claim of the

abovementioned respondents notionally at INR 1 on the ground that

there were disputes pending before various authorities in respect of

the said amounts. However, the NCLT through its judgment dated

08.03.2019 directed the resolution professional to register the entire

claim of the said respondents. The NCLAT in paragraphs 43 and 196

of the impugned judgment upheld the order passed by the NCLT as

aforesaid and admitted the claim of the abovementioned

respondents. We therefore hold that this part of the impugned

judgment deserves to be set aside on the ground that the resolution

professional was correct in only admitting the claim at a notional

value of INR 1 due to the pendency of disputes with regard to these

claims.

103.The appeals filed by the Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel

Limited and other Civil Appeals are allowed. The impugned NCLAT

judgment is set aside, except insofar as Civil Appeal No. 6409 of

2019, Civil Appeal No. 7266 of 2019, Civil Appeal No. 7260 of 2019

are concerned, which are dismissed. Insofar as Civil Appeal No. 6266

of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 6269 of 2019 is concerned, the Appeals

are partly allowed in terms of this judgment. The Writ Petitions are

163

disposed of in terms of the judgment. It is made clear that the CIRP of

the corporate debtor in this case will take place in accordance with

the resolution plan of ArcelorMittal dated 23.10.2018, as amended

and accepted by the Committee of Creditors on 27.03.2019, as it has

provided for amounts to be paid to different classes of creditors by

following Section 30(2) and Regulation 38 of the Code.

……..………….……………..J.

(R.F. Nariman)

……..………….……………..J.

(Surya Kant)

……..………….……………..J.

(V. Ramasubramanian)

New Delhi;

November 15, 2019

164