I. Case Reference
|Case Citation||:|| ibclaw.in 08 SC|
|Case Name||:||M/S. Surendra Trading Company Vs. M/S. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited and Others|
|Appeal No.||:||Civil Appeal No. 8400 of 2017|
|Appeal Ref.||:||Civil Appeal Nos.15091-15091 Of 2017 (Arising Out of Diary No. 22835 of 2017)|
|Appellant(s)||:||M/S. Surendra Trading Company|
|Respondent(s)||:||M/S. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited and Others|
|Date of Judgment||:||19-Sep-17|
|Tribunal/Court||:||Supreme Court of India|
II. Brief about decision
The question before the NCLAT was as to whether time of fourteen days under section 9(5) given to the adjudicating authority for ascertaining the existence of default and admitting or rejecting the application is mandatory or directory. NCLAT hold that the mandate of sub-section (5) of section 7 or sub-section (5) of section 9 or sub-section (4) of section 10 is procedural in nature, a tool of aid in expeditious dispensation of justice and is directory.
Further question (with which supreme Court is concerned) was as to whether the period of seven days for rectifying the defects under proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9 is mandatory or directory. The aforesaid provision of removing the defects within seven days is directory and not mandatory in nature.
Analysis of the case:
Chapter II of Part II of the Code deals with corporate insolvency resolution process. Under Section 7 of the Code, financial creditor (as per the definition contained in Section 5(7)) can initiate corporate insolvency resolution process. Section 8, on the other hand, deals with insolvency resolution by operational creditor. Operational creditor is defined in Section 5(2) of the Code to mean a person to whom an operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred. This Section provides that if ‘default’ has occurred in payment of the said debt within the meaning of Section 2(12), such an operational creditor may send a demand notice to the corporate debtor demanding payment of the amount involved in the default, in the prescribed manner, giving ten days notice in this behalf. The corporate debtor is given ten days time to bring to the notice of the operational creditor about the existence of a dispute, if any, however, send requisite proof for repayment of unpaid operational debt. However, in case the payment is not received or notice of dispute is not received, operational creditor can file an application under Section 9 for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.
The NCLAT has held that period of fourteen days prescribed for the adjudicating authority to pass such an order is directory in nature, whereas period of seven days given to the applicant/operational creditor for rectifying the defects is mandatory in nature. Conclusion in this behalf is stated in paragraphs 43 and 4 of the impugned order and these paragraphs read as under:
“43. Thus, in view of the aforementioned unambiguous position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and discussion as made above, we hold that the mandate of sub-section (5) of section 7 or sub-section (5) of section 9 or sub-section (4) of section 10 is procedural in nature, a tool of aid in expeditious dispensation of justice and is directory.
44. However, the 7 days’ period for the rectification of defects as stipulated under proviso to the relevant provisions as noticed above is required to be complied with by the corporate debtor whose application, otherwise, being incomplete is fit to be rejected. In this background we hold that the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 7 or proviso to sub-section (5) of section 9 or proviso to sub-section (4) of section 10 to remove the defect within 7 days are mandatory, and on failure applications are fit to be rejected.”
On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the NCLAT directed rejection of the application filed by the operational creditor in the following manner:
“51. Further, we find that the application was defective, and for the said reason the application was not admitted within the specified time. Even if it is presumed that 7 additional days time was to be granted to the operational creditor, the defects having pointed out on 16th February 2017 and having not taken care within time, we hold that the petition under section 9 filed by respondent/operational creditor being incomplete was fit to be rejected.
52. For the reasons aforesaid, we direct the Adjudicating Authority to reject and close the Petition preferred by Respondents. After we reserved the judgment if any order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority, except order of dismissal, if any, are also declared illegal.”
Supreme Court Verdict:
It is pointed out by the NCLAT that where an application is not disposed of or an order is not passed within a period specified in the Code, in such cases the adjudicating authority may record the reasons for not doing so within the period so specified and may request the President of the NCLAT for extension of time, who may, after taking into account the reasons so recorded, extend the period specified in the Code, but not exceeding ten days, as provided in Section 64(1) of the Code. The NCLAT has thereafter scanned through the scheme of the Code by pointing out various steps of the insolvency resolution process and the time limits prescribed therefor. It is of relevance to mention here that the corporate insolvency resolution process can be initiated by the financial creditor under Section 7 of the Code, by the operational creditor under Section 9 of the Code and by a corporate applicant under Section 10 of the Code. There is a slight difference in these provisions insofar as criteria for admission or rejection of the applications filed under respective provisions is concerned. However, it is pertinent to note that after the admission of the insolvency resolution process, the procedure to deal with these applications, whether filed by the financial creditor or operational creditor or corporate applicant, is the same. It would be relevant to glance through this procedure.
On admission of the application, the adjudicating authority is required to appoint an Interim Resolution Professional (for short, ‘IRP’) in terms of Section 16(1) of the Code. This exercise is to be done by the adjudicating authority within fourteen days from the commencement of the insolvency date. This commencement date is to reckon from the date of the admission of the application. Under sub-section (5) of Section 16, the term of IRP cannot exceed thirty days. Certain functions which are to be performed by the IRP are mentioned in subsequent provisions of the Code, including management of affairs of corporate debtor by IRP as well as duties of IRP so appointed. One of the important functions of the IRP is to invite all claims against the corporate debtor, collate all those claims and determine the financial position of the corporate debtor. After doing that, IRP is to constitute a committee of creditors which shall comprise of financial creditors of the corporate debtor. The first meeting of such a committee of creditors is to be held within seven days of the constitution of the said committee, as provided in Section 22 of the Code. In the said first meeting, the committee of creditors has to take a decision to either appoint IRP as Resolution Professional (RP) or to replace the IRP by another RP. Since term of IRP is thirty days, all the aforesaid steps are to be accomplished within this thirty days period. Thereafter, when RP is appointed, he is to conduct the entire corporate insolvency resolution process and manage the operations of the corporate debtor during the said period. It is not necessary to state the further steps which are to be taken by the RP in this behalf. What is important is that the entire corporate insolvency resolution process is to be completed within the period of 180 days from the date of admission of the applicant. This time limit is provided in Section 12 of the Act. This period of 180 days can be extended, but such extension is capped as extension cannot exceed 90 days. Even such an extension would be given by the adjudicating authority only after recording a satisfaction that the corporate insolvency resolution process cannot be completed within the original stipulated period of 180 days. If the resolution process does not get completed within the aforesaid time limit, serious consequences thereof are provided under Section 33 of the Code. As per that provision, in such a situation, the adjudicating authority is required to pass an order requiring the corporate debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in the said Chapter.
The aforesaid statutory scheme laying down time limits sends a clear message, as rightly held by the NCLAT also, that time is the essence of the Code. Notwithstanding this salutary theme and spirit behind the Code, the NCLAT has concluded that as far as fourteen days time provided to the adjudicating authority for admitting or rejecting the application for initiation of insolvency resolution process is concerned, this period is not mandatory.
The NCLAT has also held that fourteen days period is to be calculated ‘from the date of receipt of application’. The NCLAT has clarified that date of receipt of application cannot be treated to be the date of filing of the application. Since the Registry is required to find out whether the application is in proper form and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed, it will take some time in examining the application and, therefore, fourteen days period granted to the adjudicating authority under the aforesaid provisions would be from the date when such an application is presented before the adjudicating authority, i.e. the date on which it is listed for admission/order.
After analysing the provision of fourteen days time within which the adjudicating authority is to pass the order, the NCLAT immediately jumped to another conclusion, viz. the period of seven days mentioned in proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9 for removing the defect is mandatory, with the following discussion:
“44. However, the 7 days’ period for the rectification of defects as stipulated under proviso to the relevant provisions as noticed above is required to be complied with by the corporate debtor whose application, otherwise, being incomplete is fit to be rejected. In this background we hold that the proviso to subsection (5) of section 7 or proviso to sub-section (5) of section 9 or proviso to sub-section (4) of section 10 to remove the defect within 7 days are mandatory, and on failure applications are fit to be rejected.”
There is no further discussion on this aspect.
We are not able to decipher any valid reason given while coming to the conclusion that the period mentioned in proviso is mandatory. The order of the NCLAT, thereafter, proceeds to take note of the provisions of Section 12 of the Code and points out the time limit for completion of insolvency resolution process is 180 days, which period can be extended by another 90 days.
However, that can hardly provide any justification to construe the provisions of proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9 in the manner in which it is done. It is to be borne in mind that limit of 180 days mentioned in Section 12 also starts from the date of admission of the application. Period prior thereto which is consumed, after the filing of the application under Section 9 (or for that matter under Section 7 or Section 10), whether by the Registry of the adjudicating authority in scrutinising the application or by the applicant in removing the defects or by the adjudicating authority in admitting the application is not to be taken into account. In fact, till the objections are removed it is not to be treated as application validly filed inasmuch as only after the application is complete in every respect it is required to be entertained. In this scenario, making the period of seven days contained in the proviso as mandatory does not commend to us. No purpose is going to be served by treating this period as mandatory. In a given case there may be weighty, valid and justifiable reasons for not able to remove the defects within seven days. Notwithstanding the same, the effect would be to reject the application.
Various provisions of the Code would indicate that there are three stages:
(i) First stage is the filing of the application. When the application is filed, the Registry of the adjudicating authority is supposed to scrutinise the same to find out as to whether it is complete in all respects or there are certain defects. If it is complete, the same shall be posted for preliminary hearing before the adjudicating authority. If there are defects, the applicant would be notified about those defects so that these are removed. For this purpose, seven days time is given. Once the defects are removed then the application would be posted before the adjudicating authority.
(ii) When the application is listed before the adjudicating authority, it has to take a decision to either admit or reject the application. For this purpose, fourteen days time is granted to the adjudicating authority. If the application is rejected, the matter is given a quietus at that level itself. However, if it is admitted, we enter the third stage.
(iii) After admission of the application, insolvency resolution process commences. Relevant provisions thereof have been mentioned above. This resolution process is to be completed within 180 days, which is extendable, in certain cases, up to 90 days. Insofar as the first stage is concerned, it has no bearing on the insolvency resolution process at all, inasmuch as, unless the application is complete in every respect, the adjudicating authority is not supposed to deal with the same. It is at the second stage that the adjudicating authority is to apply its mind and decide as to whether the application should be admitted or rejected. Here adjudication process starts. However, in spite thereof, when this period of fourteen days given by the statute to the adjudicating authority to take a decision to admit or reject the application is directory, there is no reason to make it mandatory in respect of the first stage, which is pre-adjudication stage.
Thus, we hold that the aforesaid provision of removing the defects within seven days is directory and not mandatory in nature. However, we would like to enter a caveat.
We are also conscious of the fact that sometimes applicants or their counsel may show laxity by not removing the objections within the time given and make take it for granted that they would be given unlimited time for such a purpose. There may also be cases where such applications are frivolous in nature which would be filed for some oblique motives and the applicants may want those applications to remain pending and, therefore, would not remove the defects. In order to take care of such cases, a balanced approach is needed. Thus, while interpreting the provisions to be directory in nature, at the same time, it can be laid down that if the objections are not removed within seven days, the applicant while refiling the application after removing the objections, file an application in writing showing sufficient case as to why the applicant could not remove the objections within seven days. When such an application comes up for admission/order before the adjudicating authority, it would be for the adjudicating authority to decide as to whether sufficient cause is shown in not removing the defects beyond the period of seven days. Once the adjudicating authority is satisfied that such a case is shown, only then it would entertain the application on merits, otherwise it will have right to dismiss the application.
In fine, these appeals are allowed and that part of the impugned judgment of NCLAT which holds proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 7 or proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9 or proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10 to remove the defects within seven days as mandatory and on failure applications to be rejected, is set aside.
Case Reference: In the Supreme Court of India, M/s. Surendra Trading Company Versus M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No. 8400 of 2017, Date of Order: 19.09.2017
III. Full text of the judgment