Byju's Founder <keyword id="1702989" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Byju-Raveendran" source="Orion">Byju Raveendran</keyword>'s plea against the insolvency of <keyword id="19901241" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Think-Learn" source="keywords">Think &amp; Learn</keyword> before the NCLAT was adjourned on Monday, as one of the members of the bench recused from the hearing. The matter will be placed before a bench headed by <keyword id="19916403" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="National-Company-Law-Appellate-Tribunal" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="National Company Law Appellate Tribunal" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="National Company Law Appellate Tribunal">National Company Law Appellate Tribunal</keyword> (NCLAT) Chairman Justice Ashok Bhushan, who will assign a different bench to hear the matter. Raveendran had filed a petition challenging the initiation of <keyword id="19965539" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="insolvency-proceedings" source="keywords">insolvency proceedings</keyword> against Think &amp; Learn, which runs edtech company Byju's. The matter was listed on Monday before a two-member Chennai-based bench of the NCLAT comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial), and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical). However, Justice Sharma recused himself from the hearing, saying he had appeared as the counsel for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (<keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BCCI" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BCCI" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="BCCI">BCCI</keyword>) before his elevation. "I have appeared as a senior counsel for (the) BCCI. Since they are the main beneficiaries of this order, I cannot take this up," said Sharma. The Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (<keyword id="19901085" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCLT" source="keywords">NCLT</keyword>) on July 16 directed Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP), admitting the plea filed by the BCCI. The BCCI had approached the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) over a default of Rs 158.9 crore by Think &amp; Learn -- once India's most valuable startup worth an estimated $22 billion. NCLT has suspended the board of Think &amp; Learn Pvt Ltd as per the provisions of the IBC and had appointed an interim resolution professional (IRP) to take care of the debt-ridden firm. Raveendran challenged the NCLT order before the appellate tribunal NCLAT. He has also approached the Karnataka High Court. The high court had, on July 26 deferred Raveendran's plea to July 30. At the high court, Raveendran challenged the validity of the order and suspension of the NCLT order till the NCLAT hears the appeal.

NCLAT judge recuses from hearing Raveendran's plea against insolvency proceedings of Byju

The Supreme Court on Monday said it could consider sending the application filed by <keyword id="6355629" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="google" source="Orion">Google</keyword> back to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (<keyword id="6396355" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="nclat" source="Orion">NCLAT</keyword>). The tech giant has moved the apex court seeking stay on a Competition Commission of <keyword id="3658" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="india" source="Orion">India</keyword> (<keyword id="47183" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="cci" source="Orion">CCI</keyword>) order imposing a Rs 1,337 crore penalty on it. During the hearing, a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asked senior advocate Abhishek Manu <keyword id="79465" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="singhvi" source="Orion">Singhvi</keyword>, Google's counsel, "will Google practice the same regime in place in India as you have in Europe?" The Chief Justice added, "Please reflect on this and come back." Singhvi said when the matter came before the judge he recorded that since there is a hearing in April, there is no need for an interim order. He added that <keyword id="6355645" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="android" source="Orion">Android</keyword> is the world's best ecosystem and these directions are extraordinary. He said that the directions were that my proprietary software which makes everything is to be shared and the second is side loading. Singhvi added that the matter was filed in December and on January 3, it was mentioned before the NCLAT and the date of compliance is January 19. The Chief Justice queried, "are the directions consistent with steps taken by you?" Singhvi said no. The Chief Justice further queried, "are you then willing to put in place the regime that the EU has? You reflect on it." The top court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on January 18. The bench also added that it would send it back to NCLAT and ask them to deal with the application for stay. On January 11, the Supreme Court agreed to examine an appeal by Google against a decision by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), declining to stay a Rs 1,337.76 crore penalty imposed on it by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for alleged anti-competitive practices. Google moved the apex court after the setback at NCLAT, which did not stay the CCI order on abuse of dominant position in multiple markets in the Android mobile device ecosystem case. Earlier this month, the NCLAT did not find any urgency to pass an interim order, after noting that Google filed the appeal in December last year, though the CCI passed the order in October. It directed Google to deposit 10 per cent of the fine amount. The tribunal had said that there was no urgency shown in the filing of the appeal, therefore Google could not be allowed to press for interim relief. In October last year, the CCI had imposed a penalty of Rs 1,337.76 crore on the company for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in relation to Android mobile devices. The CCI also imposed a penalty of Rs 936.44 crore on the company for abusing its dominant position with respect to its Play Store policies. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/bank-of-maharashtra-q3-profit-more-than-doubles-to-775-crore/articleshow/97025500.cms">Bank of Maharashtra Q3 profit more than doubles to ₹775 crore</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/realty-developers-positive-on-demand-keen-on-branded-homes-plotted-developments-credai-survey/articleshow/97025103.cms">Realty developers positive on demand, keen on branded homes &amp; plotted developments: Credai survey</a>

Google-CCI penalty case: 'Will you put in same regime as in Europe', SC asks Google

New Delhi, Mar 13 () NCLAT Chairperson Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, who handled several big-ticket insolvency cases like Essar Steel during his tenure at the appellate quasi-judicial body, retired on Friday. Justice Mukhopadhaya, who turns 70 on March 15, was the first chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which was established on June 1, 2016. An NCLAT chairperson is appointed for five years and can hold office till the age of 70 years. He delivered several landmark judgements during his tenure of nearly four years. He supervised and handled several major big ticket insolvency cases that includes Essar Steel, Bhushan Power &amp; Steel, Bhushan Steel, Jaypee Infratech, ElectroSteel Steel, Binani Cement, Reliance Communications.Besides, Justice Mukhopadhaya also delivered several judgements and laid precedents for several NCLT orders and the newly-enacted Insolvency &amp; Bankruptcy Code, 2016.He would also be known for his order reinstating the ousted Tata Sons head Cyrus Mistry as it shocked the entire business world.Besides, he also proposed resolution of the IL&amp;FS group which has an outstanding debt of over Rs 94,000 crore, on the pattern of IBC."I have enjoyed every moment here from the day one," he said while addressing a function organised by the NCLAT bar here on Friday.He also said that the Chennai bench of the NCLAT would be functional from Friday."I am happy that all courts are functioning with speed. For me, speed was essence for any resolution process," he said. Prior to this, Justice Mukhopadhaya was a judge of the Supreme Court of India from September 13, 2011, to March 14, 2015.Justice Mukhopadhaya had started practice at Patna and Ranchi benches of the High Court in 1979 and was designated as senior advocate in February 1993.He was appointed as a permanent Judge of the High Court of Patna in November 1994 and after that served as judge of Jharkhand High Court after its creation. He also served as Judge of the Madras High Court, where he also functioned as the Acting Chief Justice for about five months.Thereafter from December 2009 to September 2011 he was the Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat and then was elevated to the apex court from where he retired on March 14, 2015.NCLAT constituted under Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2013 for hearing appeals against the orders of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). It is also appellate tribunal for hearing appeals against the orders passed by NCLT under the IBC and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.It is also the Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of appeals against any direction issued or decision made or order passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).The NCLAT Chairperson is appointed for a term of five years and can hold office till the age of 70 years. KRH MRMR

NCLAT Chairman Justice S J Mukhopadhaya retires

New Delhi, Jan 17 () The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has directed leading real estate player DLF Ltd to register transfer of 60,000 shares to the legal heirs of one of its deceased shareholders and has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh for "harassing the poor investors".
A three-member bench observed that DLF insisted again and again for affidavit and indemnity bond in spite of having a Letter of Administration for succession, and the action by the real estate firm deserved penal action.
"We note that the appellant (DLF) is a listed company in real estate and is very well aware of legal formalities. By insisting affidavit and indemnity bond again and again, in spite of Letter of Administration issued clearly establish that the Appellants (DLF and Rajdhani Investments) are harassing the poor investors," said a three-member NCLAT bench.
It added: "The act of the appellants deserves some penal action. We also note that the respondents are entitled for 60,000 shares as per entitlement on payment of consideration."
The appellate tribunal order came over a petition filed by DLF and one of its promoters Rajdhani Investments &amp; Agencies, in which the real estate firm has challenged the order of the Chandigarh bench of the National Company Law Tribunal.
The NCLT had on December 11, 2018 directed to register to transfer 60,000 shares after payment of Rs 2 per share in the name of respondents - sons of its deceased shareholder in accordance with the terms of Letter of Administration issued by the District Judge. 
The NCLAT asked the respondents Satya Bhushan Kaura and Subhash Chander Kaura to make payment for transfer of membership within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and directed DLF to transfer 60,000 shares within 30 days.
"Respondent will make payment of consideration to the appellant company within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and he shall be entitled to the benefit of the membership from the date of payment," said the NCLAT adding "appellant company (DLF) will transfer/arrange for transfer 60,000 shares to the respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of payment."
Moreover, the appellate tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on DLF.
"A sum of Rs five lakh - costs is imposed on appellants to be deposited with National Defence Fund within 15 days from the date of this order," said the NCLAT adding "Proof of depositing the same will be submitted to the Registrar of this Appellate Tribunal within a week thereafter".
Proof of depositing the same will be submitted to the Registrar of NCLAT within a week thereafter, the order passed on January 13 said.
Late Devki Nandan Kaura, father of the respondents held 150 equity shares of Rs 10/- each of DLF, which were subsequently converted into 6,000 equity Shares of Rs 2 each after giving effect of split and bonus issue. He passed away in 1987.
On December 29, 2005 DLF came out with the Rights issue and the offer was available to all existing shareholders. Following this scheme, Kaura family was entitled for 60,000 shares on convertible debentures issued on right basis.
Following which they approached the company and sought transfer of 66,000 equity shares. 
However, it was denied by DLF contending that it was beyond the limitation period and contended that his legal heirs has not informed the company of his demise for about 20 years.
DLF had raised the issue of limitation and argued that convertible debentures on rights basis are not heritable. 
Moreover, as per its Red Hearing Prospectus, the outer limit for submission of the requisite documents was by the close of working hours of September 26, 2007 and no relaxation in the date was possible .
However, the respondents submitted before the appellate tribunal that when they approached DLF, it on August 6, 2007 DLF through a letter asked them to procure order from competent court in his favour for succession certificate/Letter of Administration and to execute Affidavit-cum-Indemnity Bond .
They complied DLF's instruction and applied for letter of administration with respect to their father's will and got a decree regarding it on April 25, 2012 and was submitted to DLF.
However, it was rejected by DLF, following which they moved to NCLT.
Rejecting DLF's submission, the NCLAT said DLF never informed the respondents that they have not approached them within the limitation period. KRH MKJ

NCLAT asks DLF to register transfer of shares to investor's legal heirs, imposes cost of Rs 5 lakh

<img class="gwt-Image" src="/photo/56932864.cms" /> Ousted <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Tata+Sons&amp;sortorder=effectivedate">Tata Sons</a>’ chairman <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Cyrus+Mistry&amp;sortorder=effectivedate">Cyrus Mistry</a> has now moved a petition at the <keyword id="6396354" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="National-Company-Law-Appellate-Tribunal">National Company Law Appellate Tribunal</keyword>. This move made by Mistry is to clear his position of maintainability of the case and stall <keyword id="46894" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Tata-Sons">Tata Sons</keyword> shareholders meeting, which is to be held on February 6 and is called to vote out Mistry from the board. 
 <keyword id="6396355" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCLAT">NCLAT</keyword> judges, however, did not pass an order on Tata Sons shareholder meeting on Feb 6 and clear its position of maintainability of the case before starting his arguments on the main petition, so that he could appeal against any adverse decision. 
 
Recently, hearing of the petition filed by Mistry's family firms against Tata Sons was adjourned for two weeks by NCLAT at the request of Mistry's counsel C Aryama Sundaram. 
 
According to the two-member bench comprising of B.S.V. Prakash Kumar and V. Nallasenapathy, Mistry firms' refusal to argue the main petition was disobedience of the court. The judge has called the next hearing on Feb 13 and 14. 
 
"The roadmap of the hearing was already laid out of Dec 22, 2016 and Jan 18, 2017. There was time in between but the petitioner had not appealed on any order. It was obvious that matters had been dealt with. Therefore the argument is unmeritorious. Hope that the petitioner (Mistry firms) will argue after two weeks, failing which the petition will stand dismissed," Justice Kumar told ET. 
 
Mistry’s counsel- Sundaram wanted the NCLT judges to pass an order on <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Tata+Sons+shareholder&amp;sortorder=effectivedate">Tata Sons shareholder</a> meeting on Feb 6 and clear its position of maintainability of the case before starting his arguments on the main petition, so that he could appeal against any adverse decision. 
 
"We were very particular that an order should be passed on it either way rather than keep it pending, otherwise Feb 6th will come and go," Sundaram told the press on Tuesday after the hearing. "Now we may want to take other remedies against the order and that is why we asked for an adjournment. Today the bench indicated that the interim application (against holding Tata Sons shareholder meeting) was refused and rejected."

Mistry seeks to stall Tata Sons shareholding meeting, files petition

<ul><li>India’s Supreme Court today ruled its final verdict in the Tata vs Mistry case.</li><li><keyword id="6356895" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="cyrus-mistry">Cyrus Mistry</keyword>, whose family holds a majority stake in <keyword id="46894" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Tata-Sons">Tata Sons</keyword>, was appointed as Chairman in 2012 and was ousted in 2016.</li><li>The top court also said that it leaves it on the <keyword id="6355725" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="tata-group">Tata Group</keyword> and Mistry to take legal route to resolve issue of shares.</li></ul>India’s Supreme Court today ruled its final verdict in the Tata vs Mistry case. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Tata Group and dismissed an appellate court order that allowed Cyrus Mistry to be reinstated as the group Chairman. The top court said that all the laws were in favour of the Tata Group. “We cannot adjudicate on the question of compensation and they can take the route under Article 75. Order of NCLAT is set aside. Appeal by TATA group is upheld. Appeal by SP group is dismissed. Appeal by Cyrus Investments is dismissed,” said Chief Justice of India SA Bobde during the order as per legal news platform <a href="https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1375326633624674308">Bar &amp; Bench.</a> The judgement was pronounced by CJI Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Subramanian. The top court further said, “We leave it to Tata Sons, Mistry to take legal route to resolve issue of shares. Value of Tata Sons shares depends on equity.” Cyrus Mistry, whose family holds a majority stake in Tata Sons, was appointed as Chairman in 2012 and was ousted in 2016. <keyword id="6360722" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="ratan-tata">Ratan Tata</keyword> has asked Mistry to step down from his post as the board had lost faith in him. However, Mistry’s refusal to leave had resulted in the very public spat between Tata and Mistry. Here’s a timeline of the legal case so far December 2012 – Cyrus Mistry becomes the Chairman of Tata Sons Limited October 24, 2016 – Mistry gets removed from his position of Executive Chairman, in just four years of being at the helm by the majority of the board of directors of the company. December 2016 – Mistry resigns from all Tata Group companies. The Mistry family also files a case in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) accusing Tata Sons of mismanagement and shareholder oppression. February 6, 2017 – Shareholders vote for the removal of Mistry from the board of Tata Sons. February 21, 2017- Tata Sons names N Chandrasekaran, the then CEO of TCS, as Executive Chairman of Tata Sons. July 12, 2018 - NCLT dismisses Mistry’s firm’s petition which said that Tata’s Board of Directors are competent to remove the Chairman and that no selection committee is required to remove the Executive Chairman. The same judgement also said that it can’t stop Tata Sons from being a private company. Mistry then makes an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. December 19, 2019 – The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) says that Cyrus Mistry’s removal as the Chairman of Tata Sons is illegal and that his position should be restored. January 2, 2020 – Tata Sons goes on to challenge the NCLAT decision in the Supreme Court. January 10, 2020 – Supreme Court stays the NCLAT judgment. February 2020 – Mistry then moves one step ahead – files a cross appeal against the NCLAT judgement. “The NCLAT by limiting the relief granted to the appellants in connection with their prayer for Board representation, only to the remainder of Mr. Cyrus Mistry’s tenure has not secured the interest of the Shapoorji Pallonji group from any prejudicial conduct in the future”, Mistry’s petition said. September 22, 2020 - Cyrus Mistry's Shapoorji Pallonji Group (SP Group) is restrained by the Supreme Court from pledging any shares in Tata Sons to raise funds. December 8, 2020 – The Chief Justice of India SA Bobde leads a three-judge bench for the final hearing in the case. December 17, 2020 – Supreme Court reserves judgment.

Ratan Tata wins the fight against Cyrus Mistry at the Supreme Court

New Delhi, Nov 27 () The government on Wednesday said that providing jobs to former employees of now-defunct Jet Airways is not in its domain.
A portal opened for the former employees is helping them in looking for new jobs, Minister of Civil Aviation Hardeep Singh Puri told the Rajya Sabha.
"So far as the portal is concerned, it is functioning and the portal is providing opportunities both to the employees and different airlines stakeholders to be in touch with each other," he said.
"Many of the employees are utilising that portal. Others have found jobs elsewhere but again I would reiterate to the members that it is not the government's job to be in a position to take decisions which are in the domain of the management," he added.
According to Puri, it is the job of the management of an airlines to keep it afloat.
"The issue is before NCLAT. I cannot pre-judge, what NCLAT would do," he added.
Puri was replying to a supplementary question asked by Sanjay Singh of the AAP.
"The minister had assured us in the house that no employee of Jet Airways would lose job and would be adjusted in other companies," said Singh.
The government had also said at that time that a website was being launched having details of the employees for that purpose.
However, rejecting it, Puri said, "My tenure started in the Civil Aviation ministry in June and Jet Airways had ceased its operations several months before I became minister. There is no way that I could have made a statement on retrenchment. Jet Airways has already ceased operations."
The Naresh Goyal-led Jet Airways, which was the largest private carrier at its time, was grounded on April 17 due to financial troubles.
Jet Airways employed around 18,000 people, when the carrier suspended its international and domestic flights.
At present, it facing insolvency proceedings before the NCLT initiated by its lenders. KRH ZMN

Providing jobs to ex-Jet Airways employees not in our domain: Govt

The Department <keyword id="6310265" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="of-economic-affairs">of Economic Affairs</keyword> had earlier raised red signals over the likely collapse of IL&amp;FS in a confidential note on September 30, 2018 and expressed concerns over its impact on the Indian economy, according to a latest affidavit filed by the <keyword id="153101" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Corporate-Affairs">corporate affairs</keyword> <keyword id="8787526" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="ministry-the-ministry">ministry.The Ministry</keyword> of Corporate Affairs (MCA) in the affidavit said the DEA had opined that if IL&amp;FS group collapses, the Indian economy may have to face repercussions as redemption pressure would continue, debt market sell-off expected, may create liquidity crunch and NBFC licenses could be cancelled. "DEA had raised red signals of the likely collapse of IL&amp;FS and had expressed its deep concern of such a collapse on the Indian economy," said MCA in the affidavit filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Immediately after that, the MCA had moved the National Company Law Tribunal to take over the management of IL&amp;FS, which had a debt exposure of over Rs 91,000 crore. According to DEA, "AMCs having exposure of Rs 2,800 crores to IL&amp;FS bonds would get redemption pressure from Corporate Clients". It further added that it was impossible for such mutual fund schemes to get the redemption amounts in a short period of time. "Further, illiquid Corporate Debt Market and DHFL saga may force AMCs to sell government securities. Hence, the government securities would face a huge selling pressure so either Bond Yield will shoot up to 8.30-8.50 per cent levels or the RBI has to do OMO (open market operations). "If RBI opts for OMO, then the government's spending capacity will reduce by an equal amount," it had said. DEA said that NBFC licenses could be cancelled also. "In the wake of the IL&amp;FS crisis, as many as 1,500 smaller NBFCs may have their license cancelled because they do not have adequate capital," it had said. Moreover, there also could be liquidity crunch and recent events hitting market sentiments will lead to cost of fund for NBFCs increasing, impacting profitability. The RBI's liquidity inducing measures and announcements have helped government bond yields to drop to 8.05-8.08 levels, but corporate bond yields have risen further by about 40-50 bps post IL&amp;FS crisis. "Primary market in Corporate bonds has completely dried up as no one is willing to bar currently in expectation of further redemption from MF's," it added. Though IL&amp;FS group is not inconsequential, but exposure of the banks to the NBFC sector is about 16 per cent. "Therefore, there is a substantial public interest in ensuring financial solvency and good governance and management of this group," it added. According to the affidavit, IL&amp;FS has an aggregate debt of Rs 94,215 crore as of January 2020, in which Rs 10,173 crore (around 10.79 per cent) is collectively from public fund creditors as pension funds, provident funds, employee welfare funds, gratuity funds and army group insurance funds etc. Rs 44,075 crore debt, which is 47 per cent, is collectively from the commercial banks, the affidavit said. Moreover, the aggregate debt of its four key holding companies -- Infrastructure Leasing &amp; Financial Services (IL&amp;FS), IL&amp;FS Financial Services, IL&amp;FS <keyword id="5054155" type="DOMAIN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Transportation-Networks-Ltd">Transportation Networks Ltd</keyword> (ITNL) and IL&amp;FS <keyword id="719770" type="DOMAIN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Energy-Development-Company-Ltd">Energy Development Company Ltd</keyword> (IEDCL) - is almost 51 per cent, which is Rs 48,000 crore. IL&amp;FS group comprised of 302 entities, of which 169 entities are incorporated in India and 133 entities abroad. The new board has classified the 169 companies into different categories and has asked to release 55 companies from its protection shield of order dated October 15, 2018. In the affidavit, it has also asked the NCLAT to release nine other companies from the scope and operation of the October 2018 order so that they can discharge their debt obligations. While for rest 105 IL&amp;FS group companies, it has sought additional 270 days to complete their resolution process. Passing an interim order on October 15, 2018, the NCLAT had stayed all proceedings against IL&amp;FS group companies, whose total debt is Rs 94,215 crore. The government is conducting resolution process of IL&amp;FS based on the principles enunciated in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It has appointed retired Supreme Court judge Justice D K Jain to supervise the entire process.

IL&FS crisis was red-flagged in 2018 'confidential' note by the DEA

During the month of August 21, the August Standing Committee on Finance submitted its report on the implementation of the <keyword id="128499" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="insolvency" source="Orion">Insolvency</keyword> and Bankruptcy Code, the only comprehensive resolution mechanism for all forms of debt resolution which transformed India’s ease of doing business and propelled credit resolutions in India unprecedented in its history. However, as with all new regulations, the law takes its time to settle. Having said that there are certainly some learnings which need to be factored based on experience which may require attitudinal or regulatory change. Key issues are broadly around regulation changes and capacity building. I would focus the piece on capacity building, which I believe is the elephant in the room. The efficiency of courts is first on my list. Our courts today have 13,170 <keyword id="192838" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="ibc" source="Orion">IBC</keyword> ( Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) cases pending for approximately INR 9 lakh crores with 71% of the cases being more than 180 days. Apart from the vacancies at the <keyword id="6355809" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclt" source="Orion">NCLT</keyword> (National Company Law Tribunal) and NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) and the high level of litigation, the key issue on hand is the approach of the judges. Liberal stays at the slightest instance, encouraging plans from the defaulters whom the Committee of Creditors (CoC) have refused to entertain under the 12A provisions, allowing individual creditors to litigate at every step and adjudicating <keyword id="6155516" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="financial-creditor" source="Orion">Financial Creditor</keyword> admissions to IBC are tools used by vested interests to delay resolutions. The Rules need to differentiate between what is essentially a court filing from a compliance perspective from that of an adjudicating perspective. Our rules and hence our courts adjudicate matters which are essentially just procedures. Examples are Admissions to NCLT, approval of Final plan, process extensions, court filing requirements under IBC. A detailed study of differentiation between adjudication and compliance needs to be thought through. Also, Technical and Judicial members need to adhere to the same timelines as the rest of the ecosystem. This would require a detailed understanding and appreciation of the insolvency process and the law which at present seems lacking. Insolvency professionals are the second on my list. In our quest to build capacity to address the high levels of NPAs in 2016, we introduced over 3000 insolvency professionals with an entrance exam based on levels of seniority and qualifications. Whilst the professionals, mainly accountants started behaving like consultants rather than business managers who are required to preserve enterprise value during the <keyword id="1061688" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="CIRP" source="Orion">CIRP</keyword> (corporate insolvency resolution process) period. The focus too moved more toward regulatory compliance rather than business revival. To add to it the regulator focussed on process rather than value creation. Most of the 150-odd show-cause notices issued pertained to compliance with regulation as against business conduct. The supervisory aspect needs to include business conduct reviews within the spirit of regulation rather than bind the Insolvency professional to compliance as the latter only deters maintaining of Enterprise value. The Insolvency professional on his part needs to show utmost integrity and needs to be compensated for the same so as to remain honest. There is a lot of debate around the adequacy of insolvency professional’s fees which I think is a complete waste of time. The insolvency professional should be encouraged to appoint advisors where his skills are enhanced and not seek legal advice at every stage. The culture would come once the system trusts these professionals and the professionals demonstrate credibility. To build an enhanced Insolvency professionals, a continuing education program is required and members who are either found to not do them or have been found for any business-related irregularity should be barred from the profession for life. The Committee of Creditors is the final one on my list. They are the custodians of all classes of creditors and need to operate as a board of directors to protect the best interest of the company during CIRP. The CoC needs to mandate attendance of at least a Chief General Manager level person for all critical discussions and matters that require voting of 66%, for finalising the process for sale, negotiation with <keyword id="6078018" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="resolution-applicants" source="Orion">Resolution Applicants</keyword> and for discussion of all Avoidance applications. Further, the CoC should ensure that bankers provide interim finance to keep the operations going within established parameters. The CoC also needs to recognise that the Insolvency Professional is appointed by them to serve the creditors better and there may not be a need to appoint CoC advisors as different from RP advisors. If the need is felt, CoC advisors cannot be paid out of company funds. The CoC needs to question the action of the Insolvency Professional and make him accountable for actions. This would enable better governance, enterprise value creation and hence better recoveries at reduced overall costs In conclusion, I would reiterate the spirit of maintaining or even enhancing enterprise value during the CIRP period through capacity build, trust and commitment. The regulatory changes that would also be required should more be in the nature of facilitation like allowing piecemeal sale of businesses, creditor discretion on avoidance applications, reduced court processes by cutting down adjudication only to disputes and not processes and a policy around interim finance to grow businesses. The key to success of Insolvency is to trust all its four pillars where breaches should be punished appropriately. <keyword id="152629" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="abizer-diwanji" source="Orion">Abizer Diwanji</keyword> is Head – Financial Services, EY India

OPINION: How to make India’s bankruptcy resolution process faster and more efficient

<ul><li>India’s apex court has criticised the government for inadequate staffing at the <keyword id="6354457" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="National-Company-Law-Tribunal">National Company Law Tribunal</keyword>. </li><li>Chief Justice Gogoi has reportedly said that there have been delays in appointing members to the body. </li><li>The remarks highlight the need to supplement the court with additional judges and resources, which will help fast-track the resolution of big-ticket cases. </li></ul>India’s apex court has criticised the government for inadequate staffing at the main <keyword id="43550" type="EVENT" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bankruptcy">bankruptcy</keyword> court, the National Company Law Tribunal, according to Bar and Bench. Chief Justice Gogoi reportedly said that there had been delays in appointing members to the body. 
 <div type="javascript" title="Custom" contenttype="Text"><cdata><![CDATA[
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">CJI Gogoi says that when he headed the committee to appoint NCLT members, only 3-4 members were appointed. &quot;How can we function like this?&quot;. Also highlights the fact that High Courts are understaffed.&mdash; Bar &amp; Bench (@barandbench) <a href="https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1110794416300527616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 27, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
]]></cdata></div>



 The remarks highlight the need to supplement the court with additional judges and resources, which will help fast-track big-ticket bankruptcy cases like that of Videocon Group and Jaypee Infratech The under-manned nature of the <keyword id="6355809" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclt">NCLT</keyword>, which comprises 13 benches across India, has been pointed out in the recent past. In December, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a senior advocate, told <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/nclt-helps-recover-rs-80000-cr-in-2018/article25825537.ece">the Hindu</a>, “The NCLAT is managing well despite the odds. Judicially, they need many more members, at least double more. They are also hugely under-staffed.” The NCLT, which was established under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, is tasked with facilitating the resolution of insolvency cases in a time-bound period. However, despite helping banks recover around ₹800 billion of unpaid dues last year, a number of cases -- <a href="https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/delay-dogs-ibc-238-cases-cross-time-limit/story/290626.html">238, in fact</a> -- breached the 270-day resolution time limit last year. Further still, in December 2018, it was reported that 816 cases were pending resolution. This is an addition <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/banking/delays-beyond-270-days-at-nclt-cost-banks-rs-4000-cr-in-foregone-interest-icra/articleshow/66593210.cms">to thousands more </a>that are awaiting the commencement of hearings. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/indias-finance-minister-touts-the-success-of-the-countrys-recently-implemented-bankruptcy-code-but-it-still-requires-significant-improvement/articleshow/67382165.cms">India’s finance minister touts the success of the country’s recently-implemented bankruptcy code — but it still requires significant improvement</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sbi-may-move-indias-bankruptcy-court-to-recover-dues-from-jet-airways-report/articleshow/68145302.cms">SBI denies reports it is weighing NCLT to recover dues from Jet Airways</a>

You Searched For "NCLAT judge" and got 10 results

NCLAT judge recuses from hearing Raveendran's plea against insolvency proceedings of Byju

PTI

Google-CCI penalty case: 'Will you put in same regime as in Europe', SC asks Google

IANS

NCLAT Chairman Justice S J Mukhopadhaya retires

PTI

NCLAT asks DLF to register transfer of shares to investor's legal heirs, imposes cost of Rs 5 lakh

PTI

Mistry seeks to stall Tata Sons shareholding meeting, files petition

BI India Bureau

Ratan Tata wins the fight against Cyrus Mistry at the Supreme Court

Sanchita Dash

Providing jobs to ex-Jet Airways employees not in our domain: Govt

PTI

IL&FS crisis was red-flagged in 2018 'confidential' note by the DEA

PTI

OPINION: How to make India’s bankruptcy resolution process faster and more efficient

Abizer Diwanji

India's Supreme Court slams the government for leaving the country's bankruptcy court short-staffed

Dilsher Dhillon