Only those Financial Creditors that are related parties in praesenti would be debarred from CoC under the first proviso to Section 21(2), those related party Financial Creditors that cease to be related parties in order to circumvent the exclusion under the first proviso to Section 21(2), should also be considered as being covered by the exclusion thereunder – Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors. – Supreme Court

An issue of interpretation in relation to the first proviso of Section 21(2) is whether the disqualification under the proviso would attach to a financial creditor only in praesenti, or if the disqualification also extends to those financial creditors who were related to the corporate debtor at the time of acquiring the debt. Thus, facially, it would appear that the use of the simple present tense in the first proviso to Section 21(2) indicates that the disqualification applies in praesenti. Furthermore, this interpretation would also be supported by a reading of the first proviso to Section 21(2), in light of the definition of ‘related party’ under Section 5(24), which uses phrases such as ‘is accustomed to act’ or ‘is associated’ to define a related party in the present tense.(p82 & 84). While the default rule under the first proviso to Section 21(2) is that only those financial creditors that are related parties in praesenti would be debarred from the CoC, those related party financial creditors that cease to be related parties in order to circumvent the exclusion under the first proviso to Section 21(2), should also be considered as being covered by the exclusion thereunder. Mr Kaul has argued, correctly in our opinion, that if this interpretation is not given to the first proviso of Section 21(2), then a related party financial creditor can devise a mechanism to remove its label of a ‘related party’ before the Corporate Debtor undergoes CIRP, so as to be able to enter the CoC and influence its decision making at the cost of other financial creditors. (p95)

Related Posts

Guarantor cannot but be stated to be a strict liability & even if the principal debtor is discharged from his liability unless such discharge is through the act of the creditor without consent of the surety/guarantor, the creditor’s right of action against the surety is preserved-Industrial Finance Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Thletdc.An&Naonrosr.E Spinning & Weaving Mills -Supreme Court

Case Laws-SARFAESI-Supreme Court, IBC-Case Laws-Supreme Court, Indian Contract Act-Case Laws

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…

Read Post »

Scroll to Top