The Rajasthan High Court (“High Court”) in its judgment dated July 25, 2022, in the case of Vishnu Oil Mill Private Limited v. Union of India, discussed the applicability of the threshold of minimum default of Rs. 1 crore (“Minimum Default”) in case of a joint application by multiple financial creditors under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
An application under Section 7 of the IBC was filed against Vishnu Oil Mill Private Limited (“Petitioner”), by private financial creditors whose individual debts did not meet the Minimum Default, but the aggregate of their debts met the Minimum Default. The aforesaid application was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur (“NCLT”). The Petitioner filed a writ petition to assail the validity of Section 7 of the IBC as well as the order passed by the NCLT against the Petitioner.
In case of a joint application under Section 7 of the IBC, whether the Minimum Default should be applied vis-à-vis every individual financial creditor?
It was argued on behalf of the Petitioner that, while increasing the threshold for initiation of a corporate insolvency resolution process ("CIRP") from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore, the clear intent of the legislature was that a joint application could be entertained but the individual liability towards each financial creditor should not be less than the Minimum Default. Further, it was argued that a purposive interpretation should be given to Section 7 of the IBC, such that in case of a joint application filed by multiple financial creditors, the liability towards each individual financial creditor should meet the Minimum Default.
On behalf of the Respondents it was argued that the language of Section 7 of the IBC is unambiguous in as much as the remedy to trigger a CIRP has been provided to financial creditors in their individual capacity as well as jointly with the total minimum threshold being fixed at Rs. 1 crore.
High Court’s Findings:
The High Court observed that there is no ambiguity in Section 7 of the IBC, which would require any interpretation other than a literal interpretation. Further, it was observed that the impugned provision was formulated in such a manner so as to provide a means of efficacious redressal to smaller financial creditors by enabling them to join hands to meet the Minimum Default. The High Court also observed that, in case of MSMEs, there may not be any financial creditor whose individual debt meets the Minimum Default.
Accordingly, it was held that, in case of a joint application under Section 7 of the IBC, the Minimum Default should be applied on an aggregate basis and not vis-à-vis every individual financial creditor.
Please find a copy of the judgment, here.
This update has been contributed by Aastha (Partner) and Tweesha Gosar (Associate).
Argus Knowledge Centre is now on WhatsApp! Send us a message on +91 8433523504 to receive updates from our Knowledge Centre.
11, 1st Floor, Free Press House
215, Nariman Point
Mumbai – 400021
9 – 10 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
Delhi – 110002
+91 11 23701284/5/7
155, ESC House, 2nd floor,
Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase 3,
New Delhi – 110020
68 Nandidurga Road
Bengaluru – 560046
3rd Floor, 27B Camac Street
Kolkata – 700016
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.