I. Case Reference
|CaseCitation||:|| ibclaw.in 06 HC|
|Case Name||:||Essar Steel India Limited & Ors Vs. Reserve Bank Of India & Ors|
|Writ No.||:||SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12434 of 2017|
|Petitioner||:||Essar Steel India Limited & 1|
|Respondent||:||Reserve Bank Of India & 3|
|Date of Judgment||:||17-Jul-17|
|Court||:||High Court Of Gujarat|
II. Brief about the decision
“Filing of application under section 7 of the IBC itself cannot be questioned or that action cannot be quashed, but it goes without saying that such filing would not amount to admitting or allowing the petition for insolvency without offering reasonable opportunity to the debtor company – RBI is authorised to direct any banking company to initiate insolvency resolution process – Adjudicating authority (NCLT) cannot be considered as mere rubber stamp authority at the hands of RBI or any other institution – Banking Company is entitled to initiate insolvency proceedings without the directions of the RBI u/s 35AA of Banking Regulation Act.”
Analysis of the case:
Section 35 (AA) and (AB) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 read with Sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Article 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India – Power of Reserve Bank of India to give Directions.
The petitioner Essar Steel India Limited has invoked jurisdiction of the Court under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short ‘IBC’) by challenging the Decision of the Reserve Bank of India (in short ‘RBI’) vide their Press Release dated 13.06.2017 directing banks to initiate proceedings against 12 Companies including the Petitioner under the Provisions of IBC and the decision of Consortium of Lenders to initiate Petition under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and failure of the Consortium of Banks led By State Bank of India (in short ‘SBI’) to implement the package of debt restructuring approved by the Board of Directors of the Petitioner – Company.
Gujarat High Court verdict:
Filing of insolvency proceedings would be a decision of the concerned person, who is entitled to file such application and, therefore, to that extent, it cannot be said either respondent No. 2 (SBI) or 3 (SCB) can be restrained from filing such application in accordance with law.
It is undisputed fact that filing of such application itself cannot be questioned or that action cannot be quashed, but it goes without saying that such filing would not amount to admitting or allowing the petition for insolvency without offering reasonable opportunity to the company, which is requested to be taken into insolvency by any such person. Therefore, the adjudicating authority being NCLT herein, which is constituted in place of the Company Court, needs to decide on its own based upon factual details that whether the insolvency petition is required to be entertained as such or not.
For the purpose, adjudicating authority, certainly requires to extend hearing and reasonable opportunity to the company to explain that why such an application should not be entertained. In other words, filing of an application may not result into mechanical admission of application as seen and posed by RBI in impugned press release. It would be a decision based on judicial discretion by the adjudicating authority to deal with such application in accordance with law and based upon facts, evidence and circumstance placed before it.
Then, remains the only issue that whether RBI is empowered to publish press release dated 13.6.2017 or not. So far as directions to the Bank to initiate insolvency proceedings against companies, which are in debt to certain level or extent, the amended provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 in the form of Sections 35(AA) and (AB), certainly makes it clear that, now, RBI has such powers to issue certain directions to certain Banks and banking companies so as to see that there is proper recovery of public money or for any other such purpose. Therefore, the issuance of press release alone, cannot be quashed and set-aside.
The issue that remains is now limited to the scrutiny that whether such press release is in accordance with law and whether it results into infringing any fundamental right of anybody, more particularly, present petitioner and whether it is arbitrary, discriminatory and without applying proper provisions of concerned law.
The bare reading of Section 35(AA) makes it clear that the RBI is authorised to issue directions to initiate insolvency resolution process in respect of a default, and explanation makes it clear that the default has the same meaning as assigned to it in Clause (12) of Section 3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which means non-payment of debt when whole or any part or instalment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is not repaid by the debtor or the corporate debtor as the case may be. Therefore, when it is undisputed fact that the petitioner company has not paid its debt to the tune of more than Rs.32,000 Crores at the end of 31.3.2017 and when total debt is more than Rs.45,000 Crores, it is clear and obvious that RBI is authorised to direct any banking company to initiate insolvency resolution process.
When RBI has categorically confirmed that their decision is based upon the advise received from their Internal Advisory Committee, and more particularly, when decision is to the effect that the companies which have outstanding debt with more than 60% non-performing accounts for more than a year beyond Rs.5,000 Crores, the concerned Bank should initiate insolvency proceeding at the earliest. It cannot be said that there is classification of companies in any nature whatsoever. So far as identifying disclosure in paragraphs 3 and 4 of press release dated 13.6.2017 as classification is concerned, in fact there is no classification because in paragraph 4 also, it is stated that for rest of the companies against whom advise is issued for initiating insolvency resolution proceedings at the earliest, wherein petitioner No.1 includes the concerned Banks, which
finalised a resolution plan within six months and if resolution plan is not agreed upon by companies within six months, then in those cases also, Banks are required to file insolvency proceedings. Therefore, practically, there is no classification, but only time schedule is given that companies whose debt is more than Rs.5,000 Crores, which is totaling 25% of current gross NPA of the country, insolvency proceedings need to be initiated at the earliest and in rest of the companies, if resolution plan could not be finalised within six months, then, insolvency proceedings should be initiated. Therefore, there is no direction that insolvency proceeding is to be initiated only against particular company(ies) and not to be initiated against any particular company(ies). It goes without saying that any action is to be started with someone and may not lie against all at the time. It also goes without saying, as already recorded herein above that for filing any such proceeding, none of the financial company or Bank requires either the permission or direction from RBI for other agency or authority because it is their independent and absolute right to initiate any such proceeding/s. Therefore also, when respondents No.2 and 3 can initiate insolvency proceedings irrespective of any such directions, either by RBI or by any other authority, it cannot be said that direction by RBI or filing of petition by respondents No.2 and 3 is unwarranted or arbitrary. However, as already discussed herein above, filing of petition is different from admitting or allowing the petition and to that extent, this Court has issued notice to ascertain, affirm and reconfirm the position that it would be solely at the discretion of the adjudicating authority either to admit the petition and to proceed further in accordance with law or to refuse to admit the petition. It is also clear that such decision of the adjudicating authority, would be a judicial determination and, therefore, such authority has to deal with the rival submissions and factual details on the subject before taking any decision. Thereby, such adjudicating authority cannot be considered as mere rubberstamp authority at the hands of RBI or any other institution. In view of above facts, the petition needs to be disposed of with certain observations when petitioner is not entitled to any relief/s as prayed in this petition.
When petitioner has not challenged the provision of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, I have not to deal with such issue at this stage except to dispose of this petition, more particularly, when there is no scope of granting interim relief in favour of the present petitioner. Refusal of interim relief is obvious because petitioner company is in debt of more than Rs.45,000 Crores for couple of years, its NPA was more than Rs.32,000 Crores in last year and more than Rs.31,000 Crores in previous year. It is also clear that when total debt is more than Rs.45,000 Crores, there is no option, but to leave the issue at the discretion of the lenders to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, thereby, without interference of this Court under the constitutional mandate. However, at the cost of repetition, it is made clear that factual details and on-going process of restructuring plan and other details would be taken care of by NCLT before taking any decision on merits.
(A) The Respondent No. 1 RBI has to be careful while issuing press releases; it must be in consonance with the Constitutional Mandates, based upon sound principles of Law, but in any case should not be in the form of advise, guidelines or directions to judicial or quasijudicial authorities in any manner what so ever.
(B) Since the press release is referring the earlier press release dated May 22, 2017, and since in such press release there is reference of S4A – Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets, which is also introduced on the same day i.e. 13.6.2017; it would be
appropriate for RBI to see that benefit of all its schemes is equally offered and extended to all without any discrimination. It is quite clear and obvious that Court has to see that there is no arbitrariness or discrimination by State or its authorities.
(C) It cannot be held that directions under reference is in nature of classification or such classification is irrational, unjust, arbitrary or discriminatory; but it would be appropriate for RBI to see that benefit of all its schemes is equally offered and extended to all without any discrimination..
(D) It cannot be held that Banking Company is not entitled to initiate insolvency proceedings without the directions of the RBI u/s 35AA of BRA.
(E) It cannot be held that directives of RBI under reference by impugned press release is binding upon SCB and therefore SCB is bound to consider the restructuring proposal by the petitioner, wherein petitioner has offered to start payment of dues only after 25 years and that too only with 1% interest.
(F) Only because SCB has corresponded to SBI for its proposal with reference to JLF activities, it cannot be held that SCB could not have initiated insolvency proceedings but it has done it only because of RBI guidelines by way of press release.
(G) Provisions of IBC may be drastic to some extent, but since it is part of statue which is yet not declared unconstitutional and therefore they are to be followed, but in consonance with Constitutional mandate by all concerned i.e.
(1) Not to act upon it mechanically and that all provisions may not be treated mandatory but it could be treated directive only based upon facts, circumstances and evidence available before the authority (judgment dated 1.5.2017 in Company Appeal (AT) No.09 of 2017 between J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Surendra Trading Company by the National Company Law Tribunal);
(2) Without being guided by any advice or directions in any form or nature viz: impugned press release. There is reason to say so because RBI has tried to do so and changed its document when called upon to explain their stand; and
(3) Thereby it is obvious that adjudicating authority may though proceed in accordance with Law, there should not be undue pressure on it by administration and period of pendency of present petition can certainly be considered as reasonable ground to count the time limit from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
(H) So far factual details of Petitioner Company with reference to its activities and exercise of restructuring through JLF is concerned, it would be appropriate not to enter into any determination on such point since that would be the subject matter before the Adjudicating Authority under IBC (i.e. NCLT) and therefore it is left open for it to consider it for its determination in accordance with Law, to avoid any prejudice to either party by discussion and determination on any such issue at this stage by this Court, where core issue is whether there is reasonable classification by the RBI and not that whether insolvency proceedings should be admitted or continued or not.
(I) For the same reason, issue of suppression of material facts or false statement is not much material at this stage because to decide that information or fact if at all suppressed or false is whether material or not would require same exercise and that may prejudice either side. Moreover, petition can be disposed of even without determining such issue and therefore no determination is required on such issue.
(J) Pursuant to decision in Ionic Metalliks v. Union of India, reported in 2015 (2) GLH 156, no writ can be issued against SCB and therefore petition stands dismissed against Respondent No. 3/SCB. Factual details between the Petitioner and SCB has been avoided to be discussed further because this Court has not to decide the validity or proprietary of action by SCB against the petitioner when petition by SCB against petitioner is pending before the NCLT and therefore discussion and determination on factual issues may prejudice either side.
Case Reference: High Court of Gujarat, Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Special Civil Application No. 12434 of 2017, Date of order : 17-07-2017.
III. Full text of the judgment