NCLAT: NCLT Cannot Decide Legality Of A Foreign Decree

The NCLAT has once again held that the NCLT, for the purpose of initiating insolvency, has no jurisdiction to decide whether a foreign decree is legal or illegal.

The judgment is in response to an appeal filed against the Principal Bench order which got into the merits of a foreign decree, in the case of Usha Holdings LLC vs. Francorp Advisors. The Principal Bench found that the foreign decree did not satisfy the requirements of Section13 and 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, and hence the debt was not enforceable.

The NCLAT, however, disagreed and held that NCLT has no authority to decide the legality of a foreign decree. While doing so, it relied on the NCLAT judgment in the case of Binani, and recorded that,

“we hold that the Adjudicating Authority not being a Court or ‘Tribunal’ and ‘Insolvency Resolution Process’ not being a litigation, it has no jurisdiction to decide whether a foreign decree is legal or illegal.”

The reliance on the Binani judgment may be misplaced. The text of the judgment (or at least the portion quoted) does not make any reference to or is in any way related to the power of the NCLT with respect to enforcement of foreign decrees.

However, a previous judgment of the NCLAT provides better reasoning as to why NCLT is not the competent court to decide on validity of a decree, in insolvency proceedings. In the case of V.R. Hemantraj vs. Stanbic Bank Ghana Ltd, the NCLAT found that an application under Section 7, 9 or 10 is not a recovery proceeding, or proceeding for determination of claim on merit.

It further held that the NCLT is not required to write a detailed decision as to which are the evidence relied upon for its satisfaction. The NCLT is only required to be satisfied that there is a ‘debt’ and default has occurred.

Both judgments make reference to the term ‘Adjudicating Authority’  and not ‘NCLT’, because the NCLT has the powers of a Civil Court under provisions of the Companies Act, but the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC does not.

NCLAT admits banks’ petition over Jaypee Infratech land

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on Thursday admitted a petition filed by banks against the NCLT order which had directed Jaiprakash Associates to return nearly 760 acres of land to its subsidiary Jaypee Infratech.

A two-member bench headed by Chairman Justice S J Mukhopadhaya also issued notices to the resolution professional (RP) of the company over the petition filed by three lenders -- Axis Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and ICICI Bank. The bench fixed July 13 as the next date of hearing.

During the proceedings, the appellate tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority (NCLT) does not have jurisdiction to declare any instrument illegal.

NCLAT was hearing the appeal over the order of the Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had asked debt-ridden Jaiprakash Associates Ltd to return nearly 760 acres of land to its subsidiary Jaypee Infratech, declaring the transfer of the land as “fraudulent” and “undervalued”.

NCLT had directed JP Group’s flagship firm Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) to release and discharge interest created over the land to lenders including ICICI Bank.

The order had come on a petition filed by Jaypee Infratech’s resolution professional (RP) Anuj Jain in the NCLT seeking direction over transactions entered into by the company’s promoters creating mortgage on 858 acres of land to secure debt for JAL.

NCLT suggests IBBI review insolvency code regulations

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has suggested to IBBI that there is a need to review the insolvency code regulations to ensure that they are not "misused or misinterpreted". 

It also said that the resolution professional (RP) should be competent and independent so that there are no interruptions in the process which lead to delays in disposal of insolvency cases. 

Besides, it has said the claims of operational creditors are neglected or ignored as the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has supremacy of the financial creditors (banks and financial institutions) who have control over the entire process. 

Nobody is taking care of operational creditors' claim, said the NCLT Kolkata Bench in its order passed last week on the Binani Cement.

"It is time to recognise their voice also in the committee of creditors," it said, suggesting changes to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). 

In the 60-page order, the tribunal has also raised concern about the functioning of RPs, saying it has been receiving several pleas from stakeholders on issues such as transparency, arbitrariness and delays in the process. 

"The adjudicating authority (NCLT) is facing too much interruption from various stakeholders. Till date we have never come across any frivolous application. All come with a genuine grievance. All challenge the independence of the resolution professional and lack of transparency, competency and arbitrariness in the matter of resolution process," said NCLT. 

While citing Binani Cement case, the tribunal said: "In the case in hand, 12 applicants came forward ...for not following the process mandated under the code by the resolution process. The arbitrary way of dealing with the cases has always led to interruptions and also caused delay in disposal of cases." 

According to NCLT, while there is a need for reforming the regulations of the insolvency code to ensure that it is not misused or misinterpreted, there can not be any question that independence and competency of RPs are essential for preserving the objective of the code in a transparent manner leaving no room for interruption from any corner. 

The NCLT Bench of Member-Judicial Madan B Gosavi and Jinan K R said: "Hopefully, we believe that IBBI take note of all the above observations and do the needful review of the code and regulation." 

Referring to the Binani Cement case, NCLT said here the RP is a CA by profession and he failed to take business decisions to run the corporate debtor on his own. He managed to run the company by appointing about 22 representatives, who are from his own partnership. 

A resolution professional, like the RP in a case of this nature, needs some basic training for handling the resolution independently, efficiently and tackle the multiple questions from different stakeholders, said NCLT order, passed on May 2. 

"Whenever a question arises, even if answerable by the RP independently or with advice from his advisors, he comes to adjudicating authority... He shifts that burden too to the adjudicating authority," the bench said. 

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/nclt-suggests-ibbi-review-insolvency-code-regulations/articleshow/64052545.cms