On November 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Hari Babu Thota v. [None] [Civil Appeal No. 4422/2023] held that a promoter of a Corporate Debtor shall not be disqualified under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) from submitting a resolution plan even where MSME registration certificate is obtained post commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) but prior to submission of resolution plan. The Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled the judgement of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in Digamber Anandrao Pingle v. Shrikant Madanlal Zawar,[Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 43-43A of 2021], wherein the NCLAT had observed that where application for MSME certificate is made after commencement of CIRP, the same cannot tide over ineligibility under Section 29A of the Code.
Background:
Shree Aashraya Infra-Con Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) was admitted into CIRP on April 6, 2021. The Corporate Debtor obtained its MSME Registration Certificate on July 15, 2021, i.e. after initiation of CIRP.
The Resolution Professional (“Appellant”) of Corporate Debtor filed an application presenting a resolution plan before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru (“NCLT”) as submitted by the promoters of the Corporate Debtor and approved by the Committee of Creditors. The NCLT dismissed the application vide Order dated February 28, 2023 by holding that since the MSME Certificate was obtained subsequent to the initiation of CIRP, such Certificate was required to be ignored and the promoters were not eligible to file resolution plan under Section 29-A of the Code. The NCLAT relying upon the judgement of Digamber Anandrao Pingle (supra) affirmed the order passed by the NCLT.
Aggrieved by the Order passed by NCLAT, the Resolution Professional filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a corporate debtor not having an MSME status at the time of commencement of CIRP proceedings would disqualify the resolution applicant under Section 29A of the Code even when such MSME status is accorded before submission of resolution plan.
Since there was no opposing party, the Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist the Court.
Contentions of the Appellant/ Amicus:
The Appellant contended that the issue shall have far reaching consequences in so far as his role/status as Resolution Professional is concerned. The Appellant also argued that while interpreting Section 240A, the date of making the bid is the crucial date for the purpose of determining the eligibility under Section 29A. The Amicus contended that if the MSME certificate is obtained prior to the presentation of the resolution plan, the disqualification under Section 29A would not apply and benefit of Section 240A would be available.
Decision:
While answering the question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized the importance of the issue, particularly in view of the judgement in Digamber Anandrao Pingle (supra) based on which the NCLAT had dismissed the appeal. It was noted that the NCLTs/NCLATs were usually following the judgement of Digamber Anandrao Pingle (Supra) while deciding this issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the legislative history of Sections 29A and 240A and observed as under:
In view of above observations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of the resolution applicant under Section 29A of the Code in case of an MSME is the date of submission of resolution plan. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the orders passed by the NCLT and the NCLAT.
Author`s View:
While the Court traces the legislative history of the exemption given to MSMEs from rigors of Section 29A and relies on the plain language of the said provision to hold that the cut-off date shall be the date of submission of resolution plan, there is a likelihood of this judgement being misused by unscrupulous promoters to their advantage. With this judgement, a promoter of a corporate debtor who may not have even applied for an MSME status during its existence may still have a backdoor entry to regain control of the corporate debtor by obtaining MSME registration prior to submission of resolution plan. This cannot be the intent of the legislature and goes against the mischief which was sought to be prevented by introducing Section 29A of the Code.
Please find a copy of the judgement, here.
This update has been contributed by Ranjit Shetty (Senior Partner) and Rahul Dev (Principal Associate).
Argus Knowledge Centre is now on WhatsApp! Send us a message on +91 8433523504 to receive updates from our Knowledge Centre.
7A, 7th Floor, Tower C, Max House,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3,
New Delhi – 110020
The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:
a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;
c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;
d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and
e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.