Avoidance transaction proceedings can go on even after CIRP is over: Supreme Court
In a landmark judgement, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has said that adjudication of an avoidance transaction application is independent of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor, and therefore, the such proceedings can go on even after the resolution of CIRP.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Tata Steel BSL against an order passed by the single judge bench of the Supreme Court where it had allowed a writ petition of Venus Recruiters Pvt Ltd, and ordered in its favour saying that an avoidance proceeding cannot go beyond the CIRP, and that the RP cannot follow up with the avoidance transaction proceedings once the CIRP is over.
However, the bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Subramonium Prasad set aside the order of the single judge bench and overturned his decision in favour of the appellant — Tata Steel BSL.
The court made the following conclusions:
a) Applications related to Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC should be heard and adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority — the NCLT or the NCLAT, as the case maybe, notwithstanding that the CIRP has concluded and the resolution applicant has stepped into the shoes of the promoter of the erstwhile corporate debtor.
b) CIRP and avoidance transaction applications, are, by their very nature, a separate set of proceedings wherein, the former, being objective in nature, is time bound whereas the latter requires a proper discovery of suspect transactions that are to be avoided by the Adjudicating Authority. The scheme of the IBC reinforces this difference. Accordingly, adjudication of an avoidance application is independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and can survive CIRP.
c) While the law mandates a resolution plan to necessarily provide for the treatment of avoidance applications if the same are pending at the time of submission of resolution plans, it cannot be accepted that avoidance applications will be rendered infructuous in situations wherein the resolution plan could not have accounted for avoidance applications due to exigencies that delayed initiation of action in respect of avoidable transactions beyond the submission of a resolution plan before the adjudicating authority. This is because such an interpretation will render the provisions pertaining to suspect transactions otiose and let the beneficiaries of such transactions walk away, scot-free. Money borrowed from creditors is essentially public money and the same cannot be appropriated by private parties by way of suspect arrangements. Therefore, in cases such as the present one, wherein such transactions could not be accounted, the Adjudicating Authority will continue to hear the application. Such benefit cannot be given in cases where the RP had already applied for prosecution of avoidance applications and the applicant ought to have been cognizant of pending avoidance applications but did not account for the same in its resolution plan.
d) The resolution professional will not be functus officio with respect to adjudication of avoidance applications in a situation, as described hereinabove. There being a clear demarcation between the scope and nature of the CIRP and avoidance application within the scheme of the IBC, the RP can continue to pursue such applications. The method and manner of the RP‟s remuneration ought to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority itself.
e) The provisions pertaining to suspect transactions exist specifically to benefit the creditors of the corporate debtor by enhancing the asset pool available for resolution of the corporate debtor. The IBC also envisages increasing credit availability in the country as one of its primary objectives. It is apposite that any kind of benefit acquired from the adjudication of avoidance applications, in cases where treatment of such applications could not be accounted in the plan, must be given to the creditors of the erstwhile corporate debtor, considering especially, that in the present case, the creditors took a massive haircut towards resolution of the corporate debtor. Giving such benefit to the creditors is in consonance with the scheme of the IBC.
f) The amount that is made available after transactions are avoided cannot go to the kitty of the resolution applicant. The benefit arising out of the adjudication of the avoidance application is not for the corporate debtor in its new avatar since it does not continue as a debtor and has gone through the process of resolution. This amount should be made available to the creditors who are primarily financial institutions and have taken a haircut in agreeing to accept a lesser amount than what was due and payable to them.
Also Read: Landmark Judgements
