Chitra Sharma Vs Union of India

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 744 OF 2017

CHITRA SHARMA AND ORS ..Petitioners

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 782 OF 2017

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 783 OF 2017

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO 24001 OF 2017

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 803 OF 2017

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 805 OF 2017

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO 24002 OF 2017

REPORTABLE

2

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 950 OF 2017

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 860 OF 2017

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO 36396 OF 2017

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) D NO 33267 OF 2017

AND

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 511 OF 2018

J U D G M E N T

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

1 Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is granted.

2 These proceedings have been initiated under Article 32 of the

Constitution for protecting the interests of home buyers in projects floated by

Jaypee Infratech Limited1. JIL is a special purpose vehicle created by its

holding company, Jaiprakash Associates Limited2.

1 JIL 2JAL

3

3 IDBI Bank Limited instituted a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency

and Bankruptcy Code 20163 against JIL4 before the National Company Law

Tribunal5 at its Bench at Allahabad. The bank sought the initiation of a Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process6 against JIL. JIL filed its objections opposing

admission of the petition. However, according to the petitioners, JIL withdrew its

objections and furnished its consent for a resolution plan under the provisions

of the IBC. IDBI Bank claimed that JIL had committed a default of Rs. 526.11

crores in the repayment of its dues. On 9 August 2017, NCLT initiated the CIRP

in respect of JIL. An order of moratorium was issued under Section 14 by which

the institution of suits and the continuation of pending proceedings, including

execution proceedings was prohibited. An Interim Resolution Professional7 was

appointed under the provisions of the IBC. On 14 August 2017, JIL, in

pursuance of the order of NCLT called for submissions of claims by creditors:

financial creditors in Form-C, operational creditors in Form -B, workmen and

employees in Form -E and other creditors in Form -F. On 16 August 2017, the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India made an amendment to its

regulations and Regulation 9(a) was inserted to include claims by other

creditors. On 18 August 2017, the Board released a press note clarifying that

home buyers could fill in Form -F as they could not be treated at par with

financial and operational creditors.

3 IBC 4 CP (IB) 77/ALB/2017) 5 NCLT 6 CIRP 7 IRP

4

4 These proceedings were instituted for the following reliefs:

(i) A declaration that Sections 6,7,10,14 and 53 of the Code are ultra vires in

so far as only financial or operational creditors are recognized, disregarding

other stakeholders such as the home buyers;

(ii) The order dated 9 August 2017 of the NCLT be set aside;

(iii) The Union of India be directed to notify under Section 14(3) that the

provisions for moratorium contained under Section 14(1)(a) shall not apply

to consumers and that the home buyers be allowed to exercise the rights

available to them under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016;

(iv) A forensic audit of JIL and JAL be conducted for the period from 2009 to

2017; and

(v) A direction be issued to the Union of India to protect the interests of home

buyers in the larger public interest.

5 As the above narration indicates, the grievance with which this Court was

moved under Article 32 was that the CIRP ignores the interests of vital

stakeholders in building projects, chief among whom are individuals who have

invested their wealth in pursuit of the human desire to own a home. The IBC, in

the submission of the petitioners, recognized only three categories or classes

namely (i) corporate debtors; (ii) financial creditors and (iii) operational creditors.

Not being protected by the IBC, the petitioners contended that the rights

5

conferred upon them by special enactments including the Consumer Protection

Act 1986 and by RERA could not be divested. Suspension of the right to seek

redressal before an adjudicatory forum under Section 14(1)(a) would, it was

asserted, leave the home buyers without a remedy. Section 238 of the IBC gives

it an overriding effect over other laws in existence.

6 The petition before this Court has grown in size to incorporate as many

as 646 persons who claim to be home buyers. Arrayed before the Court as

respondents to these proceedings, besides JIL, JAL and the Union of India are

statutory authorities (including the Reserve Bank of India), banks and welfare

associations representing home buyers. A large number of intervention

applications have been filed.

7 The home buyers invested in residential projects (“high-tech” townships

as they were described) proposed by JIL and JAL in the National Capital

Region. The townships were to be ready for possession within thirty to thirty-six

months of the booking by a prospective buyer. Relying on the representations

of the developers, individual purchasers invested in the residential projects. A

large number of them have obtained loans from financial institutions. As a result

of the delay in handing over possession, numerous flat buyers filed consumer

complaints before the State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commissions. In June 2017, RBI is stated to have published a list of the top 12

defaulters in the country including JIL which was declared to be in default of an

amount approximately of Rs. 8,000 crores to its lenders.

6

8 This Court was moved in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32

to protect the interests of home buyers, who had been left in the lurch. When

the petition was instituted, they had no locus in the CIRP. Liquidation would

leave the home buyers to face an uncertain future. The disposal of assets would,

it is apprehended, deprive them of their right to own a home. Faced with a

situation of human distress, occasioned by the failure of the developers to meet

their contractual obligations and a legal regime as it then stood under the IBC

which provided no solace to home buyers, this Court issued notice on 4

September 2017 in a batch of writ petitions. Proceedings before the NCLT at

Allahabad were directed to remain stayed until further orders. The Court further

directed that a copy of the proceedings be served on the office of the learned

Attorney General for India. Applications for impleadment and intervention were

allowed.

9 On 11 September 2017, IDBI Bank Limited file an application for vacating

the ad-interim order dated 4 September 2017. The Attorney General submitted

before this Court that the order of stay would result in a consequence which was

unintended: control of JIL would be restored to the erstwhile management. Such

a consequence would affect the rights of creditors and of the consumers as well.

In the meantime, as a result of the ad-interim stay, the IRP had handed over

records to JIL. Counsel for the home buyers contended that if the order of stay

was being modified to enable the IRP to take back control, it was necessary to

7

have their representative on the Committee of Creditors8. The regime of the Act

did not at that stage include any representation for the home buyers on the CoC.

10 Accordingly, on 11 September 2017, this Court modified its earlier order

dated 4 September 2017 in the following terms:

a) The IRP shall forthwith take over the Management of JIL.

The IRP shall formulate and submit an Interim Resolution Plan

within 45 days before this Court. The Interim Resolution Plan

shall make all necessary provisions to protect the interests of

the home buyers;

b) Mr.Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel along with

Ms.Shubhangi Tuli, Advocate-on-Record, shall participate in

the meetings of the Committee of Creditors under Section 21

of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to espouse the

cause of the home buyers and protect their interests;

c) The Managing Director and the Directors of JIL and JAL shall

not leave India without the prior permission of this Court;

d) JAL which is not a party to the insolvency proceedings, shall

deposit a sum of Rs.2,000 crores(Rupees two thousand

crores) before this Court on or before 27.10.2017. For the said

purpose, if any assets or property of JAL have to be sold, that

should be done after obtaining prior approval of this Court. Any

person who was a Director or Managing Director of JIL or JAL

on the date of the institution of the insolvency proceedings

against JIL as well as the present Directors/Managing Director

shall also not leave the country without prior permission of this

Court. The foregoing restraint shall not apply to nominee

Directors of lending institutions (IDBI/ICICI/SBI);

e) All suits and proceeding instituted against JIL shall in terms

of Section 14(1)(a) remain stayed as we have directed the IRP

to remain in Management. Be it clarified that we have passed

this order keeping in view the provisions of the Act and also the

interest of the home buyers.”

11 The above interim directions indicate that three significant aspects were the

foundation of the order:

8 CoC

8

First, following the discipline of the IBC, the IRP was permitted to take over

management of JIL and to proceed to formulate an interim resolution plan within a

stipulated period;

Second, the IRP was directed to ensure that necessary provisions were

made to protect the interests of home buyers. To facilitate the views of the home

buyers being placed before the CoC this Court nominated a senior counsel

practicing before this Court to participate in those meetings under Section 21 of

the IBC;

Third, JAL as the holding company of JIL was directed to deposit a sum of

Rs 2,000 crores on or before 27 October 2017.

In formulating these directions, the Court initiated steps to protect the interests of

the home buyers. At that stage, it must be noted, the CoC as constituted under

Section 21 of the IBC did not include a representative of the home buyers. Nor

were the home buyers regarded as financial creditors under the IBC. The

mechanism evolved by the Court was intended to provide a workable arrangement

under the then prevailing regime so that the interests of the home buyers would

not be ignored.

12 By an order dated 23 October 2017 leave was granted to the IRP to file an

action plan and an information memorandum in a sealed cover before this Court.

9

13 JAL moved an application before this Court for vacating the direction for

deposit of Rs 2,000 crores or for a modification that would enable JAL to transfer

its rights under a concession agreement in respect of the Yamuna Expressway

(between NOIDA and Agra. This request was seriously opposed by the Attorney

General as well as by counsel appearing on behalf of IDBI Bank and the Yamuna

Expressway Industrial Development Authority. Counsel for the IRP drew the

attention of the Court to the fact that the rights under the concession agreement

belong to JIL which was subject to proceedings under the IBC as a result of which

such a request for alienation could not be permitted. By its order dated 25 October

2017, this Court declined to modify the direction for deposit of an amount of Rs

2,000 crores. However, time to do so was extended until 5 November 2017.

14 On 30 November 2017 this Court directed that the home buyers may

approach the amicus curiae9 appointed in the case. The amicus curiae was to

open a web portal on which details of the home buyers would be uploaded. All

directors were required to remain present in this Court on the next date to disclose

their personal assets on affidavit. The directors were present before this Court on

22 November 2017 when a statement was made on behalf of JAL of its readiness

to deposit a sum of Rs 275 crores. By its order dated 22 November 2017 this Court

permitted JAL to deposit a demand draft of Rs 275 crores during the course of the

day and directed that a further sum of Rs 150 crores be deposited by 13 December

2017 and of Rs 125 crores by 31 December 2017. A restraint was imposed on the

9 Mr Pawanshree Agrawal

10

alienation of the properties and assets of the directors and their families. The

earlier direction for the deposit of Rs 2,000 crores was maintained. In pursuance

of the order dated 22 November 2017 an amount of Rs 150 crores was deposited,

as noticed in the order dated 15 December 2017.

15 On 10 January 2018 RBI moved an Interlocutory Application before this

Court seeking leave to move the NCLT against JAL under the provisions of the

IBC. While observing that the application filed by the RBI would be considered at

a later stage, this Court issued directions to JAL to file details of its housing projects

on affidavit. The amicus curiae was permitted to open a separate web portal

reflecting the details of the home buyers of JAL.

16 When the proceedings were listed before this Court on 21 March 2018, JAL

stated through its counsel that an amount of Rs 550 crores had been deposited

with the Registry. Counsel for JAL stated that only 8% of the home buyers are

interested in seeking a refund while others have expressed the desire to seek

possession of their flats. The Court indicated in its order that presently it was

concerned with those home buyers who sought a refund while the grievances of

those who wished to have possession of their flats would be considered at a

subsequent stage. Since the order for the deposit of Rs 2,000 crores had not been

complied with despite the end of the deadline under the previous directions, the

Court issued further directions. As agreed by the Managing Director of JAL, an

instalment of Rs 100 crores was to be deposited by 15 April 2018 while a second

instalment in the like amount was directed to be deposited by 10 May 2018. The

11

amicus curiae informed the Court that information gathered from the web portal

indicated that an amount of Rs 1300 crores was required to be refunded by way of

principal alone to the home buyers who were seeking refunds. The amicus curiae

was requested to submit a project-wise chart to the Court, indicating the number

of persons and the stage of completion. One of the grievances of the home buyers

was that the developer was making demands towards monthly instalments despite

being unable to complete construction. Consequently, a direction was issued

restraining the developer from raising demands towards outstanding or future

instalments in respect of those flat buyers who had expressed a desire to obtain

refunds. By the order of this Court, the IRP was permitted to finalise the resolution

plan. However, the plan would, this Court directed, be implemented only with its

leave. The NCLT was permitted to decide the proceedings subject to the directions

which were issued.

17 On 16 April 2018, the Court was apprised of the fact that JAL had deposited

the first instalment of Rs 100 crores. We may note at this stage, that JAL had

submitted before the Court that it should be permitted to participate as one of the

intending bidders in the resolution plan which was being formulated by the IRP.

Dealing with the submission, this Court allowed JAL to submit a representation to

the competent authority, though with the clarification that the Court had not

expressed any opinion on that issue. This Court also directed that if the amount

as directed was not deposited within the time specified, steps would be taken to

attach the personal properties of the directors.

12

18 On 16 May 2018, the Court was apprised of the fact that an amount of Rs

750 crores was deposited by JAL. A further direction was issued for the deposit of

Rs 1000 crores by 15 June 2018 subject to which, a stay was granted of further

proceedings only in so far as the liquidation is concerned.

19 We may note at this stage that both in its earlier order dated 21 March 2018

as well as in the subsequent order dated 16 May 2018, this Court had recorded

the request of the home buyers for a pro-rata disbursement of the amount which

was deposited by JAL. No direction for disbursement has been issued and the

request was deferred for being considered.

20 On 13 July 2018, certain proposals were made by JAL before this Court for

permission to alienate specific assets to secure compliance with the interim

directions of this Court for deposit of Rs 2,000 crores. This proposal was seriously

opposed by counsel for the petitioners and home buyers, besides the financial

institutions. Observing that the Court was not inclined to entertain the proposals

mooted by the JAL, the proceedings were directed to be listed on 16 July 2018

“exclusively for the purpose of considering the issue of the rights of the home

buyers and the capability of JAL and JIL to construct the projects.”

21 Section 12(1) of the IBC envisages that the CIRP has to be completed

within a period of 180 days from the date of admission of the application.

However, a window is provided to the resolution professional to seek an

extension of a further period of 90 days upon a resolution from the CoC. The

extension can be provided only once.

13

22 In the case of JIL, the period for completing the CIRP was to end on 6

February 2018. Based on the approval of the CoC an extension of 90 days was

sought and granted by the NCLT by an order dated 12 February 2018. The

extended period was to end on 12 May 2018. During the course of the process,

the IRP invited expressions of interest in pursuance of which ten applicants

including JAL submitted resolution plans. The IRP had made it clear while

inviting applications for Expressions of Interest that the resolution plan to be

submitted by the applicants must protect the interests of home buyers and

provide for expeditious completion of the work of construction. The bid

submitted by JAL was found to be ineligible in view of the bar contained in

Section 29 A of the IBC and was not opened. Of the resolution plans submitted

by nine resolution applicants, five were found not to be compliant with the IBC

and were not not presented to the CoC for consideration. After initial

negotiations, a discussion took place with four resolution applicants, these

being:

(a) JSW Infrastructure Limited & IBC Knowledge

Park Ltd. (JSW-IBC);

(b) Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

(Adani);

(c) Lakshdeep investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd.

along with Sh.Sudhir Valia and relatives

(Lakshdeep); and

(d) Cube Highways and Infrastructure Pte. Ltd.,

Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd and I Squared Asia

Advisors Pte Ltd (Cube-Kotak-I Squared).

14

Subsequently JSW was found to be ineligible under Section 29A. Hence, the

resolution plans of the remaining three applicants were taken up for

consideration. Counsel for the IRP has drawn the attention of the Court to the

fact that none of the remaining three applicants proposed to bring in any funds

for refund of the amounts paid by the home buyers to JIL. At a meeting held on

9 April 2018, the CoC decided to shortlist the resolution plan of Lakshdeep for

negotiation. Lakshdeep submitted a resolution plan on 1 May 2018 and a

meeting of the CoC was scheduled on 7 May 2018 to consider it under Section

30(4). In the meantime, in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court on 16

April 2018, JAL submitted a representation on 6 May 2018. The CoC

considered the resolution plan of Lakshdeep and the representation of JAL.

JAL was permitted to present its plan before the CoC. The resolution plan

submitted by JAL was rejected as a result of the statutory bar contained in

Section 29A and since it failed to convince the CoC of its ability to tie up funds

for construction. The CoC resolved to put the resolution plan of Lakshdeep for

voting on 8 May 2018. However, when the plan was taken up, only 6 % of the

votes cast were in favour of Lakshdeep, as against a three-fourth majority

which was then needed under Section 30 (4) (the present requirement is of two-

thirds, following the amendment to the IBC which has taken effect from 6 June

2018). Accordingly, the IRP informed the NCLT that no resolution plan was

approved by the CoC within a period of 270 days which came to an end on 12

May 2018.

15

23 The total financial debt due to the financial creditors on the date of the

commencement of corporate insolvency (9 August 2017) stood at Rs 9,984.70

crores.

24 Section 33(1) of the IBC postulates that liquidation follows upon the

rejection of a resolution plan:

“33. Initiation of liquidation.

(1) Where the Adjudicating Authority, -

(a) before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process

period or the maximum period permitted for completion of the

corporate insolvency resolution process under section 12 or

the fast track corporate insolvency resolution process under

section 56, as the case may be, does not receive a resolution

plan under sub-section (6) of section 30; or

(b) rejects the resolution plan under section 31 for the non-

compliance of the requirements specified therein, it shall -

(i) pass an order requiring the corporate debtor to be liquidated

in the manner as laid down in this Chapter;

(ii) issue a public announcement stating that the corporate

debtor is in liquidation; and

(iii) require such order to be sent to the authority with which

the corporate debtor is registered. “

In terms of the provisions of Section 33(1), where the resolution plan has been

rejected under Section 31, the NCLT is required to pass an order for the

liquidation of the corporate debtor.

25 During the course of the hearing, there has been a unanimity of opinion

that the liquidation of JIL will not subserve the interests of the home buyers. The

home buyers have made valuable investments by contributing hard earned

16

monies in the hope of obtaining a roof over their heads. A home for the family

is a basic human yearning. In diverse contexts it has been held by this Court to

be a part of the right to life, as a fundamental constitutional guarantee10. All the

counsel for the home buyers have earnestly appealed to the Court to exercise

its jurisdiction to ensure complete justice to the home buyers instead of leaving

them to the mercy of a liquidation process. The Court appreciates the substance

in that plea, understanding at the same time, the need to abide by the discipline

of the law.

26 Now, it is in this background that it would be necessary for the Court to

understand and evaluate the provisions of the IBC which have a bearing on the

issue at hand. The IBC is intended to consolidate and amend the laws relating

to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership

firms and individuals in a time bound manner to achieve a maximisation of the

value of the assets of such persons and to promote entrepreneurship,

availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders. The

enactment of the IBC has created a paradigm shift in the regulatory framework

and processes governing corporate insolvency. The IBC reflects a fundamental

change in the basic premise of a “debtor in possession” to a “creditor in

possession”. The resolution process is market driven. Resolution professionals

are appointed or replaced by the CoC to conduct the entire process within 180

days, which can be extended for a further period of 90 days. A moratorium

would operate during the process. Failure of the resolution process leads to

10 See M/s.Shantistar Builders v Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990) 1 SCC 520

17

liquidation. Primacy is given in the process to commercial decisions. The

success of the process is contingent upon the competence of the IRP and the

CoC. The responsibilities entrusted to the IRP include managing the affairs of

the corporate debtor, engaging experts or professionals, constituting a CoC,

preparation of an information memorandum, determination of the liquidation

value and enterprise value, inviting expressions of interest, permitting

resolution applicants to submit plans which would be placed before the CoC

where the applicant is found to be eligible (Sections 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 29

and 30). The CoC comprises of all financial creditors and authorised

representatives of certain categories of persons and classes of creditors under

Section 21(6) and Section 21(6A)(b). The CoC is responsible for approving

crucial decisions and actions of the IRP, while managing the affairs of the

corporate debtor under Section 28. The resolution plan approved by 66 % of

the voting share in the CoC is submitted by the IRP to the NCLT for its approval.

When the NCLT is satisfied that the plan approved by the CoC meets the

requirement of Section 30(2) it will approve the plan, which will be binding on all

stakeholders (Sections 21, 22, 24, 25,27, 28 and 30).

Protecting Home Buyers:

27 The IBC, as it was originally enacted, did not contain an adequate

recognition of the interests of home buyers in real estate projects. Home buyers

are vital stake holders. The process of corporate insolvency resolution directly

impacts upon their rights and interests. Yet the IBC, as initially crafted, did not

18

protect them. The concerns of the home buyers have been sought to be

assuaged by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018

which came into force on 6 June 2018. As a result of the Ordinance, home

buyers are brought within the purview of financial creditors under the IBC.

The expressions “secured creditor” and “security interest” are defined in Section

3(30) and (31) thus:

“(30) “secured creditor” means a creditor in favour of whom security interest is created;

(31) “security interest” means right, title or interest or a claim to property, created in favour of, or provided for a secured creditor by a transaction which secures payment or performance of an obligation and includes mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment and encumbrance or any other agreement or arrangement securing payment or performance of any obligation of any person;

Provided that security interest shall not include a performance guarantee;”

The expression ‘financial creditor’ is defined in Section 5(7) thus:

“(7) “financial creditor” means any person to whom a financial

debt is owed and includes a person to whom such debt has

been legally assigned or transferred”

The expression ‘financial debt’ is defined in Section 5(8) thus:

(8) “financial debt” means a debt alongwith interest, if any,

which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value

of money and includes–

…

(f) any amount raised under any other transaction, including

any forward sale or purchase agreement, having the

commercial effect of a borrowing;

Explanation. -For the purposes of this sub-clause,-

19

(i) any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate

project shall be deemed to be an amount having the

commercial effect of a borrowing; and

(ii) the expressions, “allottee” and “real estate project” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them

in clauses (d) and (zn) of section 2 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016);”

As a result of the amendment brought about in the definition of ‘financial debt’,

amounts raised from allottees under real estate projects are deemed to be

amounts “having a commercial effect of a borrowing”. Hence outstandings to

allottees in real estate projects are statutorily regarded as financial debts. Such

allottees are brought within the purview of the definition of ‘financial creditors’.

28 Section 7 of the IBC creates a statutory right in favour of financial creditors

to initiate the corporate resolution process. Section 7 reads thus:

“7. Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by

financial creditor.

(1) A financial creditor either by itself or jointly with other

financial creditors, or any other person on behalf of the

financial creditor, as may be notified by the Central

Government] may file an application for initiating corporate

insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor

before the Adjudicating Authority when a default has occurred.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a default

includes a default in respect of a financial debt owed not only

to the applicant financial creditor but to any other financial

creditor of the corporate debtor.

(2) The financial creditor shall make an application under sub-

section (1) in such form and manner and accompanied

with such fee as may be prescribed.

(3) The financial creditor shall, along with the application

furnish –

(a) record of the default recorded with the information utility or

such other record or evidence of default as may be specified;

20

(b)the name of the resolution professional proposed to act as

an interim resolution professional; and

(c) any other information as may be specified by the Board.

(4) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the

receipt of the application under sub-section (2), ascertain the

existence of a default from the records of an information utility

or on the basis of other evidence furnished by the financial

creditor under sub-section (3).

(5) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that –

(a) a default has occurred and the application under sub-

section (2) is complete, and there is no disciplinary

proceedings pending against the proposed resolution

professional, it may, by order, admit such application; or

(b) default has not occurred or the application under sub-

section (2) is incomplete or any disciplinary proceeding is

pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may,

by order, reject such application:

Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before rejecting

the application under clause (b) of sub-section (5), give a

notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application

within seven days of receipt of such notice from the

Adjudicating Authority.

(6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall

commence from the date of admission of the application under

sub-section (5).

(7) The Adjudicating Authority shall communicate-

(a) the order under clause (a) of sub-section (5) to the financial

creditor and the corporate debtor;

(b) the order under clause (b) of sub-section (5) to the financial

creditor, within seven days of admission or rejection of such

application, as the case may be.”

Being financial creditors under the IBC, allottees in real estate projects

necessarily constitute a part of the CoC. Section 21 contains provisions for the

constitution of the CoC. In so far as is material, Section 21 is extracted below:

21

“21. Committee of creditors.

(1) The interim resolution professional shall after collation of

all claims received against the corporate debtor and

determination of the financial position of the corporate

debtor, constitute a committee of creditors.

…

(3) Subject to sub-sections (6) and (6A), where] the corporate

debtor owes financial debts to two or more financial creditors

as part of a consortium or agreement, each such financial

creditor shall be part of the committee of creditors and their

voting share shall be determined on the basis of the financial

debts owed to them.

(4) Where any person is a financial creditor as well as an

operational creditor, -

(a) such person shall be a financial creditor to the extent of the

financial debt owed by the corporate debtor, and shall be

included in the committee of creditors, with voting share

proportionate to the extent of financial debts owed to such

creditor;

(b) such person shall be considered to be an operational

creditor to the extent of the operational debt owed by the

corporate debtor to such creditor.

…

(6) Where the terms of the financial debt extended as part of

a consortium arrangement or syndicated facility provide for a

single trustee or agent to act for all financial creditors, each

financial creditor may-

(a) authorise the trustee or agent to act on his behalf in the

committee of creditors to the extent of his voting share;

(b) represent himself in the committee of creditors to the extent

of his voting share;

(c) appoint an insolvency professional (other than the

resolution professional) at his own cost to represent himself in

the committee of creditors to the extent of his voting share; or

(d) exercise his right to vote to the extent of his voting share

with one or more financial creditors jointly or severally.

[ (6A) Where a financial debt— (a) is in the form of securities

or deposits and the terms of the financial debt provide for

appointment of a trustee or agent to act as authorised

representative for all the financial creditors, such trustee or

agent shall act on behalf of such financial creditors;

22

(b) is owed to a class of creditors exceeding the number as

may be specified, other than the creditors covered under

clause (a) or subsection (6), the interim resolution professional

shall make an application to the Adjudicating Authority along

with the list of all financial creditors, containing the name of an

insolvency professional, other than the interim resolution

professional, to act as their authorised representative who

shall be appointed by the Adjudicating Authority prior to the first

meeting of the committee of creditors;

(c) is represented by a guardian, executor or administrator,

such person shall act as authorised representative on behalf of

such financial creditors, and such authorised representative

under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) shall attend the

meetings of the committee of creditors, and vote on behalf of

each financial creditor to the extent of his voting share.

…

(7) The Board may specify the manner of voting and the

determining of the voting share in respect of financial debts

covered under sub-sections (6) and (6A).”

Financial creditors are entitled to a voting share proportionate to the extent of

the financial debt owed. Regulation 16A contains provisions for the selection of

an authorised representative to represent financial creditors in the class.

Regulation 16A is in the following terms:

“16A. Authorised representative.

(1) The interim resolution professional shall select the

insolvency professional, who is the choice of the highest

number of financial creditors in the class in Form CA received

under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12, to act as the

authorised representative of the creditors of the respective

class:

Provided that the choice for an insolvency professional to act

as authorised representative in Form CA received under sub-

regulation (2) of regulation 12 shall not be considered.

(2) The interim resolution professional shall apply to the

Adjudicating Authority for appointment of the authorised

representatives selected under sub-regulation (1) within two

days of the verification of claims received under sub-regulation

(1) of regulation 12.

23

(3) Any delay in appointment of the authorised representative

for any class of creditors shall not affect the validity of any

decision taken by the committee.

(4) The interim resolution professional shall provide the list of

creditors in each class to the respective authorised

representative appointed by the Adjudicating Authority.

(5) The interim resolution professional or the resolution

professional, as the case may be, shall provide an updated list

of creditors in each class to the respective authorised

representative as and when the list is updated.

Clarification: The authorised representative shall have no role

in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class he

represents.

(6) The interim resolution professional or the resolution

professional, as the case may be, shall provide electronic

means of communication between the authorised

representative and the creditors in the class.

(7) The voting share of a creditor in a class shall be in

proportion to the financial debt which includes an interest

at the rate of eight per cent per annum unless a different

rate has been agreed to between the parties.

(8) The authorised representative of creditors in a class shall

be entitled to receive fee for every meeting of the committee

attended by him in the following manner, namely: -

Number of creditors in Fee per meeting of the class the committee (Rs)

10-100 15,000

101-1000 20,000

More than 1000 25,000

(9) The authorised representative shall circulate the agenda to

creditors in a class and announce the voting window at least

twenty-four hours before the window opens for voting

instructions and keep the voting window open for at least

twelve hours.” (emphasis supplied)

The voting share of a creditor in a class is proportional to the financial debt

together with interest at 8 per cent per annum.

24

On 13 July 2018, a circular has been issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Board of India to facilitate the process of appointing an authorised

representative for classes of creditors governed by Section 21 (6A) (b) of the

IBC. In so far as is material, the circular states thus:

“2. Section 21 (6A) (b) of the Code read with regulation 16A of

the Regulations provide for a simplified mechanism of

representation of financial creditors through authorised

representatives, as detailed in Para 1 above, and are,

therefore, matters of procedure. It is necessary that an

ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process, where

creditors belonging to a class are otherwise not represented in

the CoC, uses this simplified mechanism, irrespective of the

stage of the process. The resolution professional, who

exercises the powers and performs the duties as vested or

conferred on the interim resolution professional under section

23(2) of the Code, shall facilitate representation through

authorised representative(s).

3. It is, accordingly, clarified that wherever the approval of

resolution plan under regulation 39 (3) of the Regulations is at

least 15 days away, the resolution professional shall

expeditiously obtain, by electronic means, the choice of the

insolvency professional from creditors in a class to act as the

authorised representative of the class and proceed further in

the manner as specified in regulation 16 A of the Regulations.”

The case of JAL:

29 Mr FS Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of JAL

tendered a note of submissions before this Court seeking to explain the

perspective of the developers. JAL is stated to be a public listed company with

5.57 lakh individual shareholders and fifteen directors (including eight

independent directors and two nominee directors of lenders). In 2003, JAL was

allotted rights for the construction of an expressway from NOIDA to Agra. A

25

concession agreement was entered into with the Yamuna Expressway Industrial

Development Authority. A special purpose vehicle, JIL was set up. Finance was

obtained from a consortium of banks – IDBI Bank being the lead bank – against

a partial mortgage of lands acquired in the NOIDA-Agra sector and a pledge of

51% of the shareholding held by JAL. A housing plan was envisaged for the

construction of real estate projects in two locations of the land acquired: 1,162

acres in Wish Town, NOIDA and 1,355 acres in Mirzapur. JAL has stated that it

has still to provide possession to 21,532 home buyers. According to JAL:

“7. Till date:

(i) Construction of 106 Towers (out of remaining 228

towers)- consisting of 11,336 units/flats is 50% to 90%

complete, and

(ii) Construction of 50 Towers consisting of 6,500 units is

between 25% to 50% complete, and

(iii) Construction of 72 Towers is less than 25% complete.

On the basis of the above the expectation and undertaking is

to accommodate approximately 500 home buyers out of the

remaining 21,532 home buyers every single month starting

July 2018.”

JAL has sought to assure that it would double the strength of existing workers

for the construction of its projects. JAL has also stated that it would deposit

post-dated cheques of Rs 600 crores with the Registry of this Court. However,

this is subject to the condition that the Court should allow it to dispose of

“identified cement assets” including its cement plan at Rewa in Madhya

Pradesh. In order to enable it to do so, JAL has sought a direction to the NCLT

at Allahabad to decide the application filed before it for sanctioning a scheme of

arrangement, propounded pursuant to a master restructuring agreement signed

26

and accepted by the 32 creditors. JAL seeks to continue the stay of liquidation

proceedings against its deposit of post-dated cheques of Rs 600 crores. JAL

also seeks a stay on the direction of this Court allowing the IRP to remain in

management.

30 Having carefully considered the proposal submitted on behalf of JAL by

Mr FS Nariman, learned senior counsel we are not inclined to accept it. As we

shall explain, accepting the proposal submitted on behalf of JAL would cause

serious prejudice to the discipline of the IBC and would set at naught the

salutary provisions of the statute. In order to enable the Court to explain the

position, a reference is necessary to the provisions of Section 29 A of the IBC

which reads as follows:

29A. Persons not eligible to be resolution applicant. A person

shall not be eligible to submit a resolution plan, if such person,

or any other person acting jointly or in concert with such

person— (a) is an undischarged insolvent;

(b) is a wilful defaulter in accordance with the guidelines of the

Reserve Bank of India issued under the Banking Regulation

Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);

(c) at the time of submission of the resolution plan has an

account, or an account of a corporate debtor under the

management or control of such person or of whom such person

is a promoter, classified as non-performing asset in

accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India

issued under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) or

the guidelines of a financial sector regulator issued under any

other law for the time being in force, and at least a period of

one year has lapsed from the date of such classification till the

date of commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution

process of the corporate debtor:

Provided that the person shall be eligible to submit a resolution

plan if such person makes payment of all overdue amounts

with interest thereon and charges relating to nonperforming

asset accounts before submission of resolution plan:

27

Provided further that nothing in this clause shall apply to a

resolution applicant where such applicant is a financial entity

and is not a related party to the corporate debtor.

Explanation I- For the purposes of this proviso, the expression

"related party" shall not include a financial entity, regulated by

a financial sector regulator, if it is a financial creditor of the

corporate debtor and is a related party of the corporate debtor

solely on account of conversion or substitution of debt into

equity shares or instruments convertible into equity shares,

prior to the insolvency commencement date.

Explanation II.— For the purposes of this clause, where a

resolution applicant has an account, or an account of a

corporate debtor under the management or control of such

person or of whom such person is a promoter, classified as

non-performing asset and such account was acquired pursuant

to a prior resolution plan approved under this Code, then, the

provisions of this clause shall not apply to such resolution

applicant for a period of three years from the date of approval

of such resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under this

Code;]

(d) has been convicted for any offence punishable with

imprisonment –

(i) for two years or more under any Act specified under the

Twelfth Schedule; or

(ii) for seven years or more under any law for the time being in

force:

Provided that this clause shall not apply to a person after the

expiry of a period of two years from the date of his release from

imprisonment :

Provided further that this clause shall not apply in relation to a

connected person referred to in clause(iii) of Explanation I;

(e) is disqualified to act as a director under the Companies Act,

2013 (18 of 2013):

Provided that this clause shall not apply in relation to a

connected person referred to in clause (iii) of Explanation I;

(f) is prohibited by the Securities and Exchange Board of India

from trading in securities or accessing the securities markets;

(g) has been a promoter or in the management or control of a

corporate debtor in which a preferential transaction,

undervalued transaction, extortionate credit transaction or

fraudulent transaction has taken place and in respect of which

28

an order has been made by the Adjudicating Authority under

this Code:

Provided that this clause shall not apply if a preferential

transaction, undervalued transaction, extortionate credit

transaction or fraudulent transaction has taken place prior to

the acquisition of the corporate debtor by the resolution

applicant pursuant to a resolution plan approved under this

Code or pursuant to a scheme or plan approved by a financial

sector regulator or a court, and such resolution applicant has

not otherwise contributed to the preferential transaction,

undervalued transaction, extortionate credit transaction or

fraudulent transaction;

(h) has executed a guarantee in favour of a creditor in respect

of a corporate debtor against which an application for

insolvency resolution made by such creditor has been admitted

under this Code and such guarantee has been invoked by the

creditor and remains unpaid in full or part];

(i) 5[is] subject to any disability, corresponding to clauses (a)

to (h), under any law in a jurisdiction outside India; or

(j) has a connected person not eligible under clauses (a) to (i).

Explanation 6[I]. — For the purposes of this clause, the

expression "connected person" means—

(i) any person who is the promoter or in the management

or control of the resolution applicant; or

(ii) any person who shall be the promoter or in

management or control of the business of the

corporate debtor during the implementation of the

resolution plan; or

(iii) the holding company, subsidiary company, associate

company or related party of a person referred to in

clauses (i) and (ii):

Provided that nothing in clause (iii) of Explanation I shall apply

to a resolution applicant where such applicant is a financial

entity and is not a related party of the corporate debtor:

Provided further that the expression "related party" shall not

include a financial entity, regulated by a financial sector

regulator, if it is a financial creditor of the corporate debtor and

is a related party of the corporate debtor solely on account of

conversion or substitution of debt into equity shares or

instruments convertible into equity shares, prior to the

insolvency commencement date;

Explanation II—For the purposes of this section, "financial

entity" shall mean the following entities which meet such

29

criteria or conditions as the Central Government may, in

consultation with the financial sector regulator, notify in this

behalf, namely:—

(a) a scheduled bank;

(b) any entity regulated by a foreign central bank or a securities

market regulator or other financial sector regulator of a

jurisdiction outside India which jurisdiction is compliant with the

Financial Action Task Force Standards and is a signatory to

the International Organisation of Securities Commissions

Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding;

(c) any investment vehicle, registered foreign institutional

investor, registered foreign portfolio investor or a foreign

venture capital investor, where the terms shall have the

meaning assigned to them in regulation 2 of the Foreign

Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a

Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2017 made under

the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of1999);

(d) an asset reconstruction company register with the Reserve

Bank of India under section 3 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002);

(e) an Alternate Investment Fund registered with Securities

and Exchange Board of India;

(f) such categories of persons as may be notified by the Central

Government.”

31 Parliament has introduced Section 29 A into the IBC with a specific

purpose. The provisions of Section 29 A are intended to ensure that among

others, persons responsible for insolvency of the corporate debtor do not

participate in the resolution process. The Statement of Objects and Reasons

appended to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill 2017,

which was ultimately enacted as Act 8 of 2018, states thus:

“2. The provisions for insolvency resolution and liquidation of a

corporate person in the Code did not restrict or bar any person

from submitting a resolution plan or participating in the

acquisition process of the assets of a company at the time of

30

liquidation. Concerns have been raised that persons who,

with their misconduct contributed to defaults of

companies or are otherwise undesirable, may misuse this

situation due to lack of prohibition or restrictions to

participate in the resolution or liquidation process, and

gain or regain control of the corporate debtor. This may

undermine the processes laid down in the Code as the

unscrupulous person would be seen to be rewarded at the

expense of creditors. In addition, in order to check that the

undesirable persons who may have submitted their

resolution plans in the absence of such a provision,

responsibility is also being entrusted on the committee of

creditors to give a reasonable period to repay overdue

amounts and become eligible.” (emphasis supplied)

Parliament was evidently concerned over the fact that persons whose

misconduct has contributed to defaults on the part of bidder companies misuse

the absence of a bar on their participation in the resolution process to gain an

entry. Parliament was of the view that to allow such persons to participate in

the resolution process would undermine the salutary object and purpose of the

Act. It was in this background that Section 29 A has now specified a list of

persons who are not eligible to be resolution applicants.

32 Clauses (c) and (g) of Section 29 A would operate as a bar to the

promoters of JAL/JIL participating in the resolution process. Under clause (c),

a person who at the time of the submission of the resolution plan has an account

which has been classified a Non-Performing Asset under the guidelines of the

RBI or of a financial regulator is subject to a bar on participation for a stipulated

period. Under clause (g), a person who has been a promoter or in the

management or control of a corporate debtor in which a preferential transaction,

undervalued transaction, extortionate credit transaction or fraudulent

transaction has taken place and in respect of which an order has been made by

31

the adjudicating authority under the IBC is prohibited from participating. The

Court must bear in mind that Section 29 A has been enacted in the larger public

interest and to facilitate effective corporate governance. Parliament rectified a

loophole in the Act which allowed a back-door entry to erstwhile managements

in the CIRP. Section 30 of the IBC, as amended, also clarifies that a resolution

plan of a person who is ineligible under Section 29 A will not be considered by

the CoC :

“30. Submission of resolution plan.

…

(4) The committee of creditors may approve a resolution plan

by a vote of not less than 4[sixty-six] per cent. of voting share

of the financial creditors, after considering its feasibility and

viability, and such other requirements as may be specified by

the Board:

Provided that the committee of creditors shall not approve a

resolution plan, submitted before the commencement of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance,

2017 (Ord. 7 of 2017), where the resolution applicant is

ineligible under section 29A and may require the resolution

professional to invite a fresh resolution plan where no other

resolution plan is available with it:

Provided further that where the resolution applicant referred to

in the first proviso is ineligible under clause (c) of section 29A,

the resolution applicant shall be allowed by the committee of

creditors such period, not exceeding thirty days, to make

payment of overdue amounts in accordance with the proviso to

clause (c) of section 29A: Provided also that nothing in the

second proviso shall be construed as extension of period for

the purposes of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 12,

and the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be

completed within the period specified in that subsection]:

Provided also that the eligibility criteria in section 29A as

amended by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

(Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 shall apply to the resolution

applicant who has not submitted resolution plan as on the date

of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

(Amendment) Ordinance, 2018.”

32

33 Mr Anand Grover appearing on behalf of the home buyers has opposed

the proposal submitted by JAL/JIL on the following grounds:

(i)) Loans given to JAL have been classified as Non Performing Assets

which renders JAL ineligible as a resolution applicant/new promoter under

Section 29A(b) of the IBC;

(ii) In addition to Section 29A (b), JAL is also disqualified under Section 29A

(g) of IBC. Section 29A(g) provides that a person who is engaged in a fraudulent

transaction should not be allowed to bid for another company as such a person

may again engage in fraudulent transactions. In May 2018, the NCLT Allahabad

set aside a fraudulent transaction involving a mortgage of around 750 acres of

JIL’s land in favour of the lenders of JAL. This mortgage was without any

consideration and the land of 750 acres may be worth INR 5,000 crores. The

matter is now before the NCLAT, which has specifically framed an issue in this

regard;

(iii) The RBI is already before this Court seeking initiation of insolvency

proceedings against JAL. JAL’s proposal, although presented under the garb

of protecting the interest of homebuyers, is aimed at the twin benefits of

avoiding insolvency of JAL and regaining control of JIL, thereby defeating RBI’s

application for insolvency proceedings of JAL as well as Section 29A of IBC;

(iv) The reasons pleaded by JAL/JIL to excuse their failure to complete the

housing projects such as the stay order granted by the National Green Tribunal

have been rejected by orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

33

Commission as there was no stay. One such order was passed by the NCDRC

on 2 May 2016, in Developers Township Property Owners Welfare Society v.

Jaiprakash Associates Limited (Consumer Case No. 1479 OF 2015);

(v) The contention of JAL that they faced impediments on account of the

purported stay imposed by the NGT is patently incorrect as the stay by the NGT

was only on handing over possession without an occupation certificate, which

had no bearing on the construction. Moreover, JAL carried out construction

during that period as is evidenced inter alia by the fact that they raised demands

for construction linked payments during this period;

(vi) During the pendency of the CIRP from 9 August 2017, construction work

was done under the aegis of the IRP under whom JAL was a mere contractor;

(vii) The claim by JAL that flats have been delivered is a fractured claim as

flats have been delivered in incomplete stages and are not in accordance with

the allotment letters. The flooring is not complete, doors and windows are

missing, no objection certificates have not been obtained from the Fire

Department and the offer of possession is being made without the occupation

certificate;

viii) JAL does not have the capacity to deliver the flats and 22,000

homebuyers are suffering due to delays of more than four years in completion

of various projects of JAL and JIL;

(ix) Under the contracts, JAL and JIL are jointly and severally liable to deliver

the flats. If JAL was serious about delivering the flats, the present situation

would not have arisen. Further, JAL would have avoided the insolvency

34

process of JIL and would not have cast the home buyers to the uncertainties of

insolvency;

(x) There are serious doubts about the credentials of JAL which has diverted

funds from JIL towards its other businesses. The applicant associations had

appointed ASA Financial Services to conduct an audit of JIL’s financials and

the audit report demonstrates that JAL may have diverted more than INR

10,000 crore from JIL;

(xi) JAL is undergoing a serious financial crisis. This is clear from the

following facts:

(a) JAL has not yet honoured the order of this Court asking it to deposit Rs

2,000 crore for protection of the interest of the home buyers. JAL has paid only

Rs 750 crores out of Rs 2,000 crores, after the expiry of almost 10 months from

11 September 2017 which was the date of the initial order of this Court;

(b) JAL has failed to pay even the latest instalment of Rs 1,000 crores by 15

June 2018 in accordance with the order of this Court dated 16 May 2018;

(c) JAL is a defaulter of more than 30 banks to the extent of around Rs

30,000 crores. JAL has also defaulted on fixed deposits, foreign currency

convertible bonds and payments to Noida Authority;

(d) Even in the latest proposal, the proposal to deposit Rs 600 crores is

spread over time indicating that JAL has no resources; and

35

(e) The proposal of doubling the strength of workers from 4,000 to 8,000

would only mean doubling the strength from 17 workers per tower to 35 workers

per tower (228 towers to be built by 8,000 workers). This would amount to 2

workers in each floor of 4 flats (21,532 flats in 228 towers by 8,000 workers). At

this rate, completion of flats may take several years.

34 Similar submissions have been urged on behalf of the home buyers by

other learned counsel.

35 The bar under Section 29A would preclude JAL/JIL from being allowed to

participate in the resolution process. Moreover, the facts which have been

drawn to the attention of the Court leave no manner of doubt that JAL/JIL lack

the financial capacity and resources to complete the unfinished projects. To

allow them to participate in the process of resolution will render the provisions

of the Act nugatory. This cannot be permitted by the Court.

36 But it has been submitted on behalf of JAL/JIL by Mr F.S. Nariman,

learned senior counsel that with the expiry of the time lines prescribed in the

IBC for the CIRP, the only option that would now remain is to liquidate the

corporate debtor. Mr Nariman submitted that liquidation is not in the interest of

the home buyers. In that event, in his submission, the only way out would be to

obviate the consequence of liquidation by envisaging an arrangement outside

the provisions of the IBC and not under it. It has been submitted that an ongoing

project which has provided over 11,200 homes to home buyers in 79 towers

should not, as far as possible, be stopped midway since that would affect the

36

interests of the remaining 21,532 buyers who await possession. Their rights, it

has been urged, are recognised and preserved under the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act 2016. Mr Nariman submitted that unless a

group of independent professionals, to be appointed by this Court, comes to a

conclusion that it is not financially viable at all for JIL/JAL to complete the

remaining work in a time bound manner, their role as developers should not be

discounted. Hence it has been submitted that an independent committee of

experts should be constituted by this Court to evaluate the financial capability

of JAL/JIL to continue executing the ongoing projects. In this background it has

also been submitted that following the opening of the web portal under the

directions of the Court, only 8% of the home buyers have opted for refunds while

92% have chosen not to claim refunds thereby implying a confidence in the

ability of JIL/JAL to complete the project. JIL, it has been submitted, has assets

valued at Rs 17,116 crores by bank valuers to whom they were submitted as

security and even the distress value is Rs 14,548 crores. Mr Nariman submitted

that among the two sets of financial creditors of JIL and JAL:

(i) the creditors of JIL are headed by IDBI Bank apart from which there

are 12 other banks in the consortium;

(ii) the financial creditors of JAL await formal orders of the NCLT to the

scheme of arrangement which has been agreed to by all its 32

creditors under a Master Restructuring Arrangement.

37

37 We may note at this stage that counsel appearing on behalf of the home

buyers have uniformly opposed the proposal of JIL/JAL. The home buyers have

urged before this Court that they have no confidence in the ability of either JIL

or JAL to complete the outstanding projects. The home buyers have urged that

they have been left in the lurch by the developers who have miserably failed to

fulfil their contractual obligation by allotting flats on time.

38 On behalf of the IRP, Mr Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel submitted

that essentially, the Court has two options before it. The first option would be

to revive the process of corporate insolvency by extending the time period of

270 days specified in the IBC in order to enable fresh consideration to be made

of the prospect for a resolution which would now have take into account the

interests of the home buyers under the amended IBC. The second option

would, it was urged, be for this Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 142 to appoint a Committee under its directions and supervision. The

Committee would explore the possibility of a resolution which would obviate the

need for the liquidation of the corporate debtor. The second option which has

been proposed by learned senior counsel for the IRP forms the basis of the

additional submissions tendered by Mr Nariman. As we have noted, Mr Nariman

urged that on the expiry of the time lines prescribed in the IBC for the completion

of the resolution process the only available alternative is to proceed outside the

provisions of the IBC.

38

39 In considering the rival submissions, several important facets of the case

need to be underscored. First and foremost, the CIRP was initiated on 9 August

2017, following the order of the NCLT admitting the proceedings. The period of

180 days for concluding the CIRP come to an end on 6 February 2018 and the

extended period ended on 12 May 2018. When the CIRP was initiated and until

the period of 270 days concluded, the home buyers did not have the status of

financial creditors under the provisions of the IBC. They had no statutory voting

rights in the CoC. Under the interim directions of this Court, a workable

arrangement was sought to be put into place by appointing a representative of

the home buyers on the CoC to facilitate their interests being duly borne in mind.

But the point to be noted is that in the absence of a statutory recognition of the

position of the home buyers as financial creditors, the law did not allow for real

and substantive entitlements to them in the CoC. These statutory entitlements

have been brought in by the Ordinance in order to recognise the vital interests

of the home buyers in a real estate project and to allow them a statutory status

in the insolvency resolution process. Unfortunately by the time that the

Ordinance came into being on 6 June 2018, the period of 270 days had expired;

the resolution plan of Lakshdeep was rejected and the IRP informed NCLT that

no resolution plan had been approved within the extended period of 270 days

on 12 May 2018. Having regard to the material change which has been brought

about by the amendment of the IBC by the Ordinance and the fact that this Court

has been in seisin of the proceedings to ensure that the home buyers are

protected, we are of the view that it is but appropriate and to do complete justice

39

to secure the interests of all concerned that the CIRP should be revived and

CoC reconstituted as per the amended provisions to include the home buyers.

Tn the facts of the present case, recourse to the power under Article 142 would

be warranted to render complete justice. Parliament has undoubtedly provided

a period of 180 days and an extended period of 90 days to complete the

process. But in the present case a peculiar situation has arisen as a result of

which the status of the home buyers which had not been recognised prior to 6

June 2018 has now been expressly recognised as a result of the amending

Ordinance. Learned counsel for the IRP submitted that in the CoC which will be

reconstituted under the amended IBC, the home buyers would have a

substantial voting power so as to be able to effectively protect their interests.

Moreover, this Court should follow the discipline of the IBC which has been

enacted by Parliament specifically to streamline the resolution of corporate

insolvencies. Matters involving corporate insolvencies require expert

determination. The legislature has made specific provisions which are

conceived in public interest and to facilitate good corporate governance. The

Court should not take upon itself the burden of supervising the intricacies of the

resolution process. Accepting the suggestion of Mr Nariman (and one of the

two options proposed by Mr Tripathi) of the Court appointing a Committee to

supervise the resolution process outside the IBC will involve the Court in an

insuperable burden of evaluating intricate matters of financial expertise on

which Parliament has legislated to create specific mechanisms. We are

emphatically of the view that it would not be appropriate for the Court to appoint

40

a Committee to oversee the CIRP and assume the task of supervising the work

of the Committee. We must particularly be careful not to supplant the

mechanisms which have been laid down in the IBC by substituting them with a

mechanism under judicial directions. Such a course of action would in our view

not be consistent with the need to ensure complete justice under Article 142,

under the regime of law. Hence, the power under Article 142 should be utilised

at the present stage for the limited purpose of recommencing the resolution

process afresh from the stage of appointment of IRP by the order dated 9

August 2017 and resultantly renew the period which has been prescribed for

the completion of the resolution process. We have furnished above, the reasons

for doing so. Chief amongst them is the fact that in the present case the period

of 270 days expired before the Ordinance conferring a statutory status on home

buyers as financial creditors came into existence. In the circumstances, it would

be necessary to revive the period prescribed by the statute by another 180 days

commencing from the date of this order. During this period, the IRP shall follow

the provisions of the IBC afresh in all respects. A new CoC should be constituted

in accordance with the amended provisions of the IBC to enforce the statutory

status of the allottees as financial creditors. We also clarify that apart from the

three bidders whose bids were found to be eligible by the IRP, it would be open

to the IRP to invite fresh bids to facilitate a wider field of choice before the CoC.

In that process, the offers made by the intervenors in this proceedings can also

be considered by CoC anew. We are not inclined to evaluate the merits of the

bids submitted by the bidders who were left in the fray, two of whom have

41

intervened. All bids must follow the discipline of the IBC. We have, however,

not accepted the submission to allow JIL or JAL and the erstwhile promoters to

participate in the process. Their participation is expressly prohibited by Section

29 A and we decline to make any exception which would breach a salutary and

express provision made in the IBC.

40 As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit

before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has

accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim

directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the

home buyers who seek a refund. We are keenly conscious of the fact that the

claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be

considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the

plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one

reason. Firstly, during the pendency of the CIRP, it would as a matter of law,

be impermissible for the Court to direct a preferential payment being made to a

particular class of financial creditors, whether secured or unsecured. For the

present, we leave open the question as to whether the home buyers are

unsecured creditors (as was urged by Mr.Tripathi) or secured creditors (as was

urged by counsel appearing for them). Directing disbursement of the amount of

Rs 750 crores to the home buyers who seek refund would be manifestly

improper and cause injustice to the secured creditors since it would amount to

a preferential disbursement to a class of creditors. Once we have taken

recourse to the discipline of the IBC, it is necessary that its statutory provisions

42

be followed to facilitate the conclusion of the resolution process. Secondly, the

figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the

web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have

sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of

the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests

of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to

secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750

crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who

seek a refund. The purpose of the process envisaged by the IBC for the

evaluation and approval of a resolution plan is to form a composite approach to

deal with the financial situation of the corporate debtor. Allowing a refund to

one class of financial creditors will not be in the overall interest of a composite

plan being formulated under the provisions of the IBC. Thirdly during the course

of the hearing, the Court has been apprised of the concerns of the secured

creditors, chief among them being the IDBI bank limited. In its submissions

before this Court, IDBI bank has emphasised that one of the major reasons for

the enactment of the IBC was to protect the interest of lenders. The debt owing

to the banks and financial institutions has been secured by the assets of JIL, to

protect their interests. This debt originates in the public deposits of the banks

and financial institutions, who are answerable to their stakeholders. Fourthly,

the RBI has moved this Court for permission to initiate an insolvency resolution

process. Parliament enacted the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act 2017

by introducing Section 35 AA and Section 35 AB into the Banking Regulation

43

Act 1949. The amendment empowers the Central government to authorise RBI

to issue directions to any banking company to initiate an insolvency resolution

process in respect of a default as understood under the IBC. Such an order

was issued by the Central government on 5 May 2017. The RBI constituted an

Internal Advisory Committee (IAC) consisting primarily of its independent

directors. The IAC took up for consideration accounts which were classified

either partly or wholly non-performing from amongst the top 500 exposures in

the banking system as on 31 March 2017. As a first step, the IAC recommended

all such non-performing asset accounts with fund and non-fund based

outstandings exceeding Rs 5,000 crores. The IAC has initially taken up twelve

accounts involving total exposure of Rs1,79,769 crores. JIL was one of the

twelve accounts in respect of which directions have been issued to banks for

initiating insolvency resolution. Subsequently, the IAC recommended that in

respect of those accounts where 60% or more had been classified as NPAs as

on 30 June 2017, banks may be directed to implement a viable resolution plan

within six months failing which the accounts may be directed for a reference

under the IBC by 31 December 2017. JAL was one such entity. No viable

resolution plan could be found as a result of which it is also required to be

referred for CIRP. RBI has carried out this exercise as a matter of economic

policy in its capacity as the prime banking institution in the country, entrusted

with a supervisory role, and the power to issue binding directions. The position

of the RBI as an expert regulatory body particularly in matters of economic and

financial policy has been reiterated in several decisions of this Court: [R.K.Garg

44

v Union of India11, Peerless General Finance and Investment Co.Ltd. v

RBI12, TN Generation and Distribution Corpn. Ltd. v CSEPDI-Trishe

Consortium13”].

41 JAL was classified under the SMA – II category (demands overdue for

more than 60 days) by banks as early as on 3 October 2014 and as an NPA

since 31 March 2015. We agree with the submission of the RBI that any further

delay in resolution would adversely impact a viable resolution being found for

JAL and JIL. The facts which have emerged before the Court from the

application filed by the RBI clearly indicate the financial distress of JAL and JIL.

The apprehensions of the home-buyers in regard to their financial incapacity is

borne out by RBI, as a responsible institution has urged before the Court. The

IBC has been enacted in the form of a comprehensive bankruptcy law and with

a specific legislative intent. With the amendment brought about by the

Ordinance promulgated in June 2018, the interests of the home buyers have

been sought to be safeguarded. Accordingly, we accede to the request made

on behalf of the RBI to allow it to follow the recommendations of the IAC to

initiate a CIRP against JAL under the IBC.

42 We, accordingly, issue the following directions:

(i) In exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the

Constitution, we direct that the initial period of 180 days for the

11 (1981) 4 SCC 675 at para 19 12 (1992) 2 SCC 343 at para 31 13 (2017) 4 SCC 318 at para 36

45

conclusion of the CIRP in respect of JIL shall commence from the date

of this order. If it becomes necessary to apply for a further extension

of 90 days, we permit the NCLT to pass appropriate orders in

accordance with the provisions of the IBC;

(ii) We direct that a CoC shall be constituted afresh in accordance with

the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment)

Ordinance, 2018, more particularly the amended definition of the

expression “financial creditors”;

(iii) We permit the IRP to invite fresh expressions of interest for the

submission of resolution plans by applicants, in addition to the three

short-listed bidders whose bids or, as the case may be, revised bids

may also be considered;

(iv) JIL/JAL and their promoters shall be ineligible to participate in the

CIRP by virtue of the provisions of Section 29A;

(v) RBI is allowed, in terms of its application to this Court to direct the

banks to initiate corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against

JAL under the IBC;

(vi) The amount of Rs 750 crores which has been deposited in this Court

by JAL/JIL shall together with the interest accrued thereon be

transferred to the NCLT and continue to remain invested and shall

abide by such directions as may be issued by the NCLT.

43 We see no reason to keep these proceedings pending before the Court

any further. The proceedings shall stand disposed of. However, we grant liberty

46

to all concerned parties to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with

law, should it become necessary to do so in future. Applications, if any, pending

are also disposed of.

.........................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA]

...........................................J

[A M KHANWILKAR]

...........................................J

[Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi; August 09, 2018

CHITRA SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA

CHITRA SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA