Whether Section 10A would stand attracted to a situation where the application under Section 9 was filed prior to 05.06.2020, when Section 10A was inserted, and in respect of a default which has taken place after 25.03.2020 – Ramesh Kymal Vs. M/s. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. – Supreme Court

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that financial distress caused by the outbreak of Covid-19 provides the backdrop to the insertion of Section 10A. The language of the provision is not always decisive to arrive at a determination whether the provision if applicable prospectively or retrospectively. The Ordinance and the Amending Act enacted by Parliament, adopt 25 March 2020 as the cut-off date. The proviso to Section 10A stipulates that "no application shall ever be filed" for the initiation of the CIRP "for the said default occurring during the said period”. The expression "shall ever be filed" is a clear indicator that the intent of the legislature is to bar the institution of any application for the commencement of the CIRP in respect of a default which has occurred on or after 25 March 2020 for a period of six months, extendable up to one year as notified. The explanation which has been introduced to remove doubts places the matter beyond doubt by clarifying that the statutory provision shall not apply to any default before 25 March 2020. The substantive part of Section 10A is to be construed harmoniously with the first proviso and the explanation. Reading the provisions together, it is evident that Parliament intended to impose a bar on the filing of applications for the commencement of the CIRP in respect of a corporate debtor for a default occurring on or after 25 March 2020; the embargo remaining in force for a period of six months, extendable to one year. Acceptance of the submission of the appellant would defeat the very purpose and object underlying the insertion of Section 10A. For, it would leave a whole class of corporate debtors where the default has occurred on or after 25 March 2020 outside the pale of protection because the application was filed before 5 June 2020.(p22-23) The Supreme Court also held that Section 10A does not contain any requirement that the Adjudicating Authority must launch into an enquiry into whether, and if so to what extent, the financial health of the corporate debtor was affected by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.

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