Two statutes, two limitation regimes

For an NCLT appeal to NCLAT, the most common and most costly error is applying the wrong limitation period. The NCLAT hears appeals under both the Companies Act, 2013 and the Code, and the timelines differ.

Under the Code. Section 61(1) permits any person aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority to appeal to the NCLAT. Section 61(2) fixes thirty days. The proviso permits the NCLAT to allow an appeal filed after that period where sufficient cause is shown, but such further period shall not exceed fifteen days.

Under the Companies Act, 2013. Section 410 constitutes the NCLAT, and Section 421 provides the appeal. The period is forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order is made available to the aggrieved person, with a discretionary further period on sufficient cause shown, in the terms the section prescribes.

Where an order is passed in an insolvency matter, the Code governs. It is a complete code with an overriding effect, and a party cannot borrow the longer Companies Act period for an appeal arising under the Code.

The thirty-plus-fifteen rule is absolute

Under the Code, forty-five days is the ceiling, not a guideline. The NCLAT has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond fifteen days past the initial thirty, and the Supreme Court has declined to relieve against it even in cases of apparent hardship — including declining to exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to condone a delay that exceeded the statutory limit, on the footing that the extraordinary power cannot be used against an express statutory provision.

Equally important is when the clock starts. The Supreme Court has held that limitation under Section 61 runs from the date on which the order is pronounced, not from the date the appellant claims to have learned of its contents, and not from the date it was uploaded. An appellant who waits for a certified copy to arrive before considering an appeal has usually already lost days that cannot be recovered.

The practical discipline that follows is simple: apply for the certified copy immediately upon pronouncement, and file within thirty days if at all possible.

NCLT appeal to NCLAT: grounds and scope of appeal

The NCLAT is an appellate tribunal, not a forum for re-arguing commercial merits. Appeals succeed on identifiable defects: an error of law; a finding reached without jurisdiction; a violation of the principles of natural justice, such as an order passed without hearing a necessary party; a conclusion unsupported by any evidence; or non-compliance with a mandatory statutory requirement.

In insolvency matters specifically, one limit is fundamental. The commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors in approving or rejecting a resolution plan is not open to review on merits. In Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531, decided on 15 November 2019, the Supreme Court held that neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Tribunal may substitute its own view for the commercial judgment of the committee. What remains reviewable is whether the process complied with the Code — the treatment of dissenting financial creditors, the minimum entitlements of operational creditors, the eligibility of the resolution applicant, and the requirements of Section 30(2).

Filing an appeal before the NCLAT

An NCLT appeal to NCLAT is filed under the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, in the prescribed form of memorandum of appeal, accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order, the grounds, the documents relied upon, an affidavit of verification and the prescribed fee.

Two applications commonly accompany the memorandum. Where the appeal is beyond thirty days under the Code, an application for condonation must set out the cause with dates — and must be capable of bringing the filing within the fifteen-day outer limit. And an application for interim relief is usually essential: an appeal does not, by itself, stay the order appealed against, and in insolvency matters the process moves on while the appeal is pending.

What happens on appeal

The NCLAT may admit the appeal and issue notice, dismiss it at the threshold, or grant interim relief pending hearing. On final hearing it may confirm, modify or set aside the order, and may remit the matter to the Tribunal.

The nature of the relief that remains available is worth weighing before filing. Where a corporate insolvency resolution process has advanced, or a resolution plan has been implemented, an appellate court may find that the position cannot practically be reversed — which is why interim relief sought early matters more than an appeal argued well and late.

Further appeal

Section 62 of the Code provides an appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of the NCLAT on a question of law arising out of that order, within the period the section prescribes. The corresponding route under the Companies Act, 2013 is provided by Section 423. Both are confined to questions of law: neither is a further opportunity to reopen findings of fact.

A short checklist

Identify which statute the order was passed under, and apply that statute’s limitation period. Diarise the date of pronouncement, not the date of receipt. Apply for the certified copy at once. Decide whether interim relief is needed and seek it with the appeal. And frame the grounds around a legal or procedural defect rather than a disagreement with the outcome — particularly where the outcome reflects a decision of the committee of creditors.

FAQ

1. What is the limitation period for an NCLT appeal to NCLAT?
Under the IBC, an appeal must generally be filed within 30 days, with a maximum additional 15 days that may be condoned for sufficient cause.

2. Does the Companies Act have a different appeal period?
Yes. Appeals under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 generally have a 45-day limitation period, subject to the statutory power to condone delay.

3. When does the limitation period under Section 61 of the IBC begin?
It runs from the date the NCLT order is pronounced, rather than from the date the appellant receives or downloads the order.

4. Can NCLAT condone delay beyond 45 days under the IBC?
No. The NCLAT cannot condone a delay exceeding the 30-day period plus the additional 15-day statutory limit under Section 61(2).

5. Does filing an appeal automatically stay the NCLT order?
No. An appeal does not automatically operate as a stay. Appropriate interim relief should be sought from the NCLAT.

6. What can be challenged in an NCLT appeal?
An appeal may challenge errors of law, jurisdictional defects, procedural violations, denial of natural justice, unsupported findings, or failure to comply with mandatory statutory requirements.

Legal Information Disclaimer

This article is published for general legal information and educational purposes only. It reflects the position of Indian law as researched up to 10 August 2026 and may not account for subsequent amendments, notifications, rule changes or judicial developments. It is not legal advice, does not take into account any individual’s particular facts or circumstances, and no advocate-client relationship arises from reading it. Outcomes in litigation depend on the specific facts of each case and on procedural requirements in force at the relevant time. Readers dealing with an actual dispute should obtain independent professional advice from a qualified advocate of their own choosing before acting on any information contained here.

Sources / Authorities

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 61 and 62, and Section 30(2) — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• Companies Act, 2013 — Sections 410, 421 and 423 — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016
• Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531, Supreme Court of India, decided 15 November 2019 — primacy of the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors; limits of appellate review
• Constitution of India, Article 142 — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in

The post How to appeal an NCLT order to the NCLAT appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Promoters and directors often provide personal guarantees for company loans to secure financing from creditors. Earlier, if the company defaulted, creditors generally had to pursue recovery through a civil suit or proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which could take considerable time. The position changed with the introduction of personal guarantor insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). A creditor can now initiate insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor, potentially exposing the guarantor’s personal assets and estate to the consequences of the insolvency process.

How the provisions came into force

Part III of the Code deals with insolvency resolution and bankruptcy for individuals and partnership firms. It was not brought into force wholesale. By a notification dated 15 November 2019, the Central Government brought specified provisions into force in relation to one category only — personal guarantors to corporate debtors.

That selective commencement was challenged. In Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India, (2021) 9 SCC 321, decided on 21 May 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the notification, rejecting the contention that the Government had impermissibly brought the Code into force for a sub-class of individuals.

The judgment also decided a question of far greater commercial significance. The Court held that approval of a resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor under Section 31 does not by itself discharge the personal guarantor from liability under the contract of guarantee. A plan that reduces or extinguishes the company’s debt does not automatically reduce or extinguish the guarantor’s obligation, which survives subject to the terms of the guarantee and of the plan.

A further constitutional challenge followed, directed at the procedure itself. In Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, decided on 9 November 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Code, rejecting the argument that the absence of an adjudicatory hearing before the appointment of a resolution professional rendered the scheme arbitrary.

Which forum

The Adjudicating Authority depends on what is happening to the company. Where a corporate insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceeding in respect of the corporate debtor is pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, the application against the personal guarantor goes to the same Tribunal. Otherwise the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction over individuals under Part III.

That linkage is deliberate. It allows the guarantor’s insolvency and the company’s to be considered by the same forum, and it is one reason creditors frequently move against guarantors while the corporate process is under way.

Personal Guarantor Insolvency Process under the IBC: Step by Step

Initiation. A debtor may apply under Section 94; a creditor may apply under Section 95, either personally or through a resolution professional.

Interim moratorium. Under Section 96, an interim moratorium commences on the filing of the application. During it, pending legal proceedings in respect of any debt are deemed to have been stayed, and creditors are barred from initiating fresh legal action in respect of any debt. This is immediate and automatic — it does not await any order.

Appointment of the resolution professional. Under Section 97 the Adjudicating Authority appoints a resolution professional, on confirmation from the Board or by direction.

The report. Under Section 99 the resolution professional examines the application, may seek information and explanation from the debtor, and submits a report recommending approval or rejection.

Admission or rejection. Under Section 100 the Adjudicating Authority passes an order admitting or rejecting the application. Dilip B. Jiwrajka clarified the character of the earlier stages: the resolution professional’s function at the Section 99 stage is recommendatory and facilitative rather than adjudicatory, and the adjudication occurs at Section 100.

Moratorium. On admission, a moratorium under Section 101 operates for the period the section prescribes, during which creditors cannot initiate or continue legal action in respect of the debt and the debtor cannot transfer or dispose of assets.

Repayment plan. The debtor, in consultation with the resolution professional, prepares a repayment plan. It is placed before a meeting of creditors, which votes on it; if approved and then approved by the Adjudicating Authority, it binds the creditors and the debtor.

Discharge. On completion of the repayment plan, or in the circumstances the Code provides, a discharge order may follow. If no repayment plan is approved, bankruptcy proceedings may be initiated.

What Should a Personal Guarantor Expect under the IBC?

Several features of insolvency proceedings involving personal guarantors under the IBC tend to surprise those encountering this regime for the first time.

The guarantee is not extinguished by the company’s resolution. This is the direct consequence of Lalit Kumar Jain. Guarantors frequently assume that a resolution plan approved for the company closes the matter. It does not.

Liability is co-extensive with the company’s. A creditor is not required to exhaust its remedies against the company or its security before proceeding against the guarantor, unless the guarantee itself so provides. The terms of the guarantee deed — whether it is continuing, whether liability is limited in amount, whether it survives variation of the facility — therefore repay careful reading.

The interim moratorium is a shield as well as a consequence. It stays pending proceedings in respect of the debt, which can halt parallel recovery actions.

The estate at risk is personal. Unlike corporate insolvency, this process reaches the individual’s own assets, subject to the exclusions the Code provides.

Disqualification consequences may follow under the Companies Act, 2013 and under the Code, including restrictions on submitting a resolution plan.

Practical points

For a guarantor, the documents that matter are the guarantee deed itself, the invocation notice, the account statements establishing the amount claimed, and the record of the corporate insolvency process. Defences commonly turn on whether the guarantee was validly invoked, whether the claimed amount is correctly computed, whether limitation has expired — Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, 1963 — and whether the guarantee’s own terms limit or exclude the liability asserted.

For a creditor, the route is now materially faster than a recovery suit, which is precisely why it has become a standard step alongside corporate insolvency rather than an afterthought.

For anyone being asked to sign a personal guarantee, the position is worth understanding before signature rather than after invocation. The guarantee is not a formality that lapses when the company’s debt is resolved.

FAQ

What is Personal Guarantor Insolvency under the IBC?

A personal guarantor is an individual who has guaranteed repayment of a company’s debt. The IBC allows creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings against such a guarantor, subject to the applicable provisions of the Code.

Does a company’s resolution plan discharge the personal guarantor?

No. Under Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India, approval of a resolution plan for the corporate debtor does not automatically discharge the personal guarantor from liability.

Which Forum Handles Personal Guarantor Insolvency under the IBC?

The NCLT generally handles the application when CIRP or liquidation of the corporate debtor is pending before it. Otherwise, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may have jurisdiction.

What happens after a Section 95 application is filed?

An interim moratorium begins under Section 96. A resolution professional then examines the application and submits a report before the Adjudicating Authority decides whether to admit or reject it.

Can a personal guarantor’s assets be affected?

Yes. The insolvency process can affect the guarantor’s personal estate, subject to the exclusions and protections provided under the IBC.

Can a creditor proceed against the guarantor without first recovering from the company?

Generally, yes, unless the terms of the guarantee provide otherwise. The guarantor’s liability is ordinarily co-extensive with that of the principal debtor.

Legal Information Disclaimer

This article is published for general legal information and educational purposes only. It reflects the position of Indian law as researched up to 10 August 2026 and may not account for subsequent amendments, notifications, rule changes or judicial developments. It is not legal advice, does not take into account any individual’s particular facts or circumstances, and no advocate-client relationship arises from reading it. Outcomes in litigation depend on the specific facts of each case and on procedural requirements in force at the relevant time. Readers dealing with an actual dispute should obtain independent professional advice from a qualified advocate of their own choosing before acting on any information contained here.

Sources / Authorities

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Part III, including Sections 60, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101 and the repayment plan provisions; Sections 31 and 238A — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• Central Government Notification dated 15 November 2019 bringing specified provisions of Part III into force in relation to personal guarantors to corporate debtors
• Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019
• Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India, (2021) 9 SCC 321, Supreme Court of India, decided 21 May 2021 — validity of the 15 November 2019 notification; approval of a resolution plan for the corporate debtor does not ipso facto discharge the personal guarantor
• Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, decided 9 November 2023 — constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 upheld; nature of the resolution professional’s role at the Section 99 stage
• Limitation Act, 1963

The post Personal Guarantor Insolvency under the IBC: What to Expect appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The statutory scheme

Section 4 of the Code provides that Part II — the part dealing with insolvency resolution and liquidation of corporate persons — applies where the minimum amount of the default is one lakh rupees. The proviso empowers the Central Government to specify, by notification, a higher minimum amount of default, which shall not be more than one crore rupees.

The Central Government exercised that power by notification S.O. 1205(E) dated 24 March 2020, issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, specifying one crore rupees as the minimum amount of default for the purposes of Section 4 of the IBC.

Two consequences follow. The operative threshold is one crore rupees, not the one lakh figure that appears on the face of Section 4. And one crore is the statutory ceiling: the proviso itself caps what the Government may specify, so no notification can raise the threshold further without an amendment to the Code.

Why Was the IBC Default Threshold Increased to ₹1 Crore?

The notification was issued on the day nationwide restrictions were announced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its stated purpose was to protect companies, particularly micro, small and medium enterprises, from insolvency applications arising out of the economic disruption that followed.

The effect has proved durable rather than temporary: the notification carried no expiry date and continues to govern.

The policy trade-off it created is worth naming, because it cuts both ways. Raising the threshold shields smaller companies from being dragged into insolvency over modest sums. It equally removes the Code as a remedy for small creditors — often themselves MSMEs — owed amounts below one crore by larger counterparties.

The threshold is not retrospective

When the notification was issued, a question arose immediately: did it apply to applications already filed and pending admission? Tribunals took the view that the notification operates prospectively, so that applications filed before 24 March 2020 were not defeated by it. Litigation on the point continued for some time in different forums.

For any application contemplated now the question is academic, since the threshold applies to every fresh filing. It remains relevant only where an old application is still being defended on that basis.

How Is the Minimum Default Amount Calculated Under the IBC?

This is where applications are most often lost.

Default, not total debt. Section 3(12) defines default as non-payment of a debt when it has become due and payable. It is the amount in default that must reach one crore rupees, not the total facility, the contract value, or the sum of all dealings between the parties.

Measured at the time of filing. A part-payment that brings the outstanding default below one crore before the application is filed will defeat it. Corporate debtors facing a threatened application not infrequently make precisely such a payment.

Aggregation of a single creditor’s dues. A creditor may generally aggregate the amounts due to it — several unpaid invoices, several tranches of a facility — provided each is genuinely due and payable and none is time-barred. What a creditor may not do is add another creditor’s dues to reach the figure, since the threshold applies to the default in respect of which the applicant applies.

Interest. Whether contractual interest may be counted towards the threshold depends on whether interest is payable under the agreement or applicable law, as distinct from being claimed unilaterally in a demand notice. Interest asserted for the first time in order to cross one crore invites scrutiny.

Disputed components. Amounts genuinely in dispute are unlikely to assist an operational creditor in reaching the threshold, since the dispute itself is a separate ground of rejection.

Related limits that operate alongside the threshold

Meeting the threshold is necessary but not sufficient. Three other bars apply.

Limitation. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Code. A debt on which limitation has expired cannot found an application, whatever its size.

The Section 10A bar. Section 10A prohibits the filing of an application under Sections 7, 9 or 10 in respect of a default arising during the period it specifies, beginning 25 March 2020, and provides that no application shall ever be filed in respect of such a default. This is a permanent exclusion for defaults falling within that window, not a temporary suspension, and it operates independently of the amount involved.

Pre-existing dispute. For an operational creditor, a plausible dispute pre-dating the demand notice defeats the application regardless of quantum, following Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353.

Practical implications

For a creditor owed less than one crore rupees, the Code is closed. The realistic alternatives are a summary suit, a commercial court proceeding where the dispute falls within the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, arbitration where the contract provides for it, or the statutory mechanism available to a micro or small enterprise in respect of delayed payments.

For a creditor at or above the threshold, the calculation should be documented in the application itself: which invoices or tranches, which due dates, what has been paid, and what remains. An application that presents a single consolidated figure without that breakdown invites a challenge on quantum, and a challenge on quantum in an insolvency application is a challenge to jurisdiction.

For a company facing a threatened application, the threshold is a defence worth examining early — both as to the arithmetic and as to whether components of the claimed sum are time-barred, disputed, or attributable to a default falling within the Section 10A window.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the minimum default amount under the IBC?

The current minimum default amount for initiating insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor is ₹1 crore, as notified under Section 4 of the IBC.

Can multiple unpaid invoices be combined to reach ₹1 crore?

Yes. A creditor may generally aggregate its own due and payable amounts, provided they are legally recoverable and not time-barred or genuinely disputed.

Is the total debt considered for the ₹1 crore threshold?

No. The relevant figure is the amount in default, not the debtor’s total outstanding debt or the total value of the underlying contract.

Can interest be included in the default amount?

Interest may be included where it is legally payable under the contract or applicable law. A creditor cannot simply add an unsupported interest amount to cross the ₹1 crore threshold.

What happens if the default is below ₹1 crore?

A fresh application under Section 7, Section 9 or Section 10 cannot be initiated on that default because it does not meet the prescribed minimum threshold.

Does meeting the ₹1 crore threshold guarantee admission?

No. The threshold is only one requirement. Limitation, Section 10A and, for operational creditors, a pre-existing dispute can independently prevent an application from being admitted.

Legal Information Disclaimer

This article is published for general legal information and educational purposes only. It reflects the position of Indian law as researched up to 10 August 2026 and may not account for subsequent amendments, notifications, rule changes or judicial developments. It is not legal advice, does not take into account any individual’s particular facts or circumstances, and no advocate-client relationship arises from reading it. Outcomes in litigation depend on the specific facts of each case and on procedural requirements in force at the relevant time. Readers dealing with an actual dispute should obtain independent professional advice from a qualified advocate of their own choosing before acting on any information contained here.

Sources / Authorities

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 3(12), 4, 7, 9, 10, 10A and 238A — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• Notification S.O. 1205(E) dated 24 March 2020, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, F. No. 30/9/2020-Insolvency — one crore rupees specified as the minimum amount of default under the proviso to Section 4
• Limitation Act, 1963
• Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353
• Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in

The post Minimum Default Amount to Trigger IBC Proceedings appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is the legal process through which an insolvent or defaulting company undergoes a structured resolution process for the benefit of its creditors. CIRP can be initiated under Section 7 by a financial creditor, Section 9 by an operational creditor, or Section 10 by the corporate debtor itself. Each provision has different eligibility requirements, filing procedures and legal defences. Understanding the CIRP filing requirements, minimum default threshold and applicable provisions under the IBC is essential because choosing the wrong provision or filing before the statutory requirements are satisfied can lead to rejection of the insolvency application.

The common threshold

Section 4 of the Code fixes the entry point. By notification S.O. 1205(E) dated 24 March 2020, issued under the proviso to Section 4, the Central Government specified one crore rupees as the minimum amount of default. Below that figure, the Adjudicating Authority — the National Company Law Tribunal — has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Part II.

Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Code, so a claim on which limitation has expired cannot be revived by filing an insolvency application.

A further bar operates on a defined period. Section 10A prohibits the filing of an application under Sections 7, 9 or 10 in respect of a default arising during the period it specifies, beginning 25 March 2020, and provides that no application shall ever be filed for such a default.

Section 7: application by a financial creditor

A financial creditor is one to whom a financial debt — as defined in Section 5(8), a debt disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money — is owed. Banks, financial institutions, debenture holders, lessors under a finance lease and, in the specified circumstances, allottees under a real estate project fall within it.

The application is made in Form 1 prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, accompanied by the record of default — from an information utility or such other evidence as the Rules specify — the name of the proposed interim resolution professional, and the documents establishing the debt and the default.

For financial creditors in a class, notably allottees under a real estate project, Section 7 requires the application to be filed jointly by not less than one hundred such creditors in the same class or not less than ten per cent of their total number, whichever is less.

Crucially, no demand notice is required. A financial creditor may apply on default without any prior statutory notice.

Sections 8 and 9: application by an operational creditor

An operational debt, under Section 5(21), is a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services, including employment dues and statutory dues. Suppliers, service providers, employees and government departments are typically operational creditors.

Here a two-stage process applies, and the first stage is mandatory.

Stage one — the demand notice under Section 8. On the occurrence of a default, the operational creditor delivers a demand notice, or a copy of an invoice demanding payment, in the form prescribed by the Rules. The corporate debtor then has ten days to bring to the creditor’s notice the existence of a dispute, or to make payment.

Stage two — the application under Section 9. If neither payment nor notice of dispute is received within ten days, the operational creditor may apply in Form 5, supported by the invoices or demand notice, an affidavit that no notice of dispute was received, and a certificate from a financial institution maintaining the creditor’s accounts confirming non-payment, where such a certificate is required.

The dispute filter is decisive. In Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353, the Supreme Court held that where the corporate debtor raises a plausible contention requiring further investigation, and the dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence, the application must be rejected. The Court emphasised that the Code is not intended as a substitute for a debt recovery forum. The dispute must, however, pre-date the demand notice.

Section 10: application by the corporate debtor

A company that has committed a default may itself initiate the process, applying in Form 6 with the requisite internal authorisation, a record of the default, and information about its financial position and the proposed resolution professional. Section 11 disqualifies certain applicants, including a corporate debtor already undergoing CIRP and one in respect of which a resolution plan was approved within the preceding twelve months.

What the Tribunal does with the application

Section 7(5) provides that where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application is complete, and no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may admit the application. Section 9(5) uses “shall” in the corresponding provision for operational creditors.

That difference in wording generated genuine uncertainty. In Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 352, decided on 12 July 2022, the Supreme Court held that “may” in Section 7(5)(a) confers a discretion, so that the Tribunal could decline to admit even where debt and default were established; a review petition was dismissed. That reading sat uneasily with earlier authority, including Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407, and E.S. Krishnamurthy v. Bharath Hi-Tech Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 3 SCC 161. In M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank, Civil Appeal No. 7121 of 2022, decided on 11 May 2023, the Supreme Court confined Vidarbha to the peculiar facts before it and reaffirmed the earlier position. Practitioners should treat the discretion as narrow and fact-specific rather than general.

If the application is defective, the Tribunal gives an opportunity to rectify within the period the Code allows before rejecting it.

What follows admission

Admission triggers consequences that are difficult to reverse. A moratorium under Section 14 halts suits, execution, enforcement of security and transfer of assets. An interim resolution professional takes over the management, and the powers of the board stand suspended. A committee of creditors is constituted, claims are invited and verified, and resolution plans are sought.

Section 12 sets the timeline: 180 days, extendable by up to 90 days, with an outer limit of 330 days including any time spent in legal proceedings. Where no plan is approved, liquidation follows.

Withdrawal after admission is possible but not easy. Section 12A permits withdrawal only with the approval of ninety per cent of the voting share of the committee of creditors.

Key checks before filing a CIRP application under IBC

Three checks are worth running before an CIRP application is drafted under IBC. Is the amount in default at least one crore rupees as at the date of filing — bearing in mind that a part-payment reducing it below the threshold defeats the application? Is the claim within limitation? And, for an operational creditor, is there anything on the record — a prior email, a quality complaint, a pending suit or arbitration — that the corporate debtor can point to as a pre-existing dispute?

An application filed to apply commercial pressure in a genuinely disputed claim is unlikely to be admitted, and may attract adverse consequences for the applicant.

FAQs

1. What is CIRP under the IBC?

CIRP is the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, used to resolve insolvency of a corporate debtor.

2. Who can initiate CIRP?

CIRP can be initiated by a financial creditor under Section 7, an operational creditor under Section 9, or the corporate debtor under Section 10.

3. What is the minimum default amount for CIRP?

The minimum default threshold for initiating CIRP is ₹1 crore, subject to the applicable provisions and notifications under the IBC.

4. Is a demand notice required before filing CIRP?

A Section 8 demand notice is mandatory for an operational creditor before filing under Section 9. A financial creditor filing under Section 7 does not need to issue a statutory demand notice.

5. Can CIRP be initiated if the debt is disputed?

For an operational creditor, a genuine pre-existing dispute can prevent admission of a Section 9 application. The IBC cannot be used simply as a debt recovery mechanism.

6. What happens after a CIRP application is admitted?

Admission triggers the moratorium, suspension of the corporate debtor’s management, appointment of an interim resolution professional and constitution of the committee of creditors.

Legal Information Disclaimer

This article is published for general legal information and educational purposes only. It reflects the position of Indian law as researched up to 10 August 2026 and may not account for subsequent amendments, notifications, rule changes or judicial developments. It is not legal advice, does not take into account any individual’s particular facts or circumstances, and no advocate-client relationship arises from reading it. Outcomes in litigation depend on the specific facts of each case and on procedural requirements in force at the relevant time. Readers dealing with an actual dispute should obtain independent professional advice from a qualified advocate of their own choosing before acting on any information contained here.

Sources / Authorities

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 4, 5(8), 5(21), 7, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 11, 12, 12A, 14 and 238A — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• Notification S.O. 1205(E) dated 24 March 2020, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, issued under the proviso to Section 4 — one crore rupees specified as the minimum amount of default
• Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 — Forms 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6
• Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353 — existence of a pre-existing dispute; the Code is not a recovery forum
• Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407
• Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 352, decided 12 July 2022 — discretion under Section 7(5)(a); review dismissed
• E.S. Krishnamurthy v. Bharath Hi-Tech Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 3 SCC 161
• M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank, Civil Appeal No. 7121 of 2022, decided 11 May 2023 — Vidarbha confined to its facts

The post How to file a CIRP application under IBC (Sections 7, 9 and 10) appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is a key forum for corporate disputes in India, particularly matters arising under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. For companies registered in Gujarat, the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench is the relevant forum for matters falling within its territorial jurisdiction. Yet a common misconception is that the NCLT is a general commercial court for every dispute involving a company. It is not. NCLT jurisdiction in India is specifically conferred by statute, and disputes that fall outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction must be brought before the appropriate civil court, commercial court, arbitral tribunal or other forum.

What the NCLT is

The NCLT is a statutory tribunal constituted under the Companies Act, 2013. It took over the corporate jurisdiction formerly distributed between the Company Law Board, the High Courts and the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. It also functions as the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for corporate persons.

Appeals from its orders lie to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, and from the NCLAT to the Supreme Court on the terms provided in the respective statutes.

Territorial jurisdiction

The NCLT sits in benches, and the territorial jurisdiction of each bench is fixed by notification. The NCLT Ahmedabad Bench exercises jurisdiction over companies having their registered office in Gujarat, together with such other States and union territories as the governing notification assigns to it.

Two cautions apply. Bench allocations have been revised as new benches have been constituted, so the current notification — available through the NCLT’s official website — should be checked rather than an older list. And jurisdiction is determined by the location of the registered office of the company, not by where the parties are, where the contract was performed, or where the default occurred.

Matters under the Companies Act, 2013

The Tribunal’s company-law jurisdiction covers a defined set of proceedings. The recurring ones are these.

Oppression and mismanagement. Sections 241 and 242 permit members who satisfy the eligibility thresholds to complain that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to any member, or prejudicial to the public interest or to the interests of the company. The Tribunal’s remedial powers under Section 242 are wide, extending to regulating the conduct of the company’s affairs, purchase of shares, and setting aside transactions.

Class action. Section 245 enables specified members or depositors to bring an action on behalf of a class where the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to their interests.

Schemes of compromise, arrangement and amalgamation. Sections 230 to 232 place mergers, demergers, arrangements with creditors and similar schemes before the Tribunal for approval — a jurisdiction formerly exercised by the High Courts.

Reduction of share capital. Section 66 requires the Tribunal’s confirmation.

Rectification of the register of members. Section 59 provides the remedy where a person’s name is entered in, or omitted from, the register without sufficient cause — the route for many share-transfer and transmission disputes.

Winding up. Section 271 sets out the grounds on which a company may be wound up by the Tribunal, other than under the insolvency route.

Conversion of a public company into a private company, along with a range of statutory applications, approvals, extensions and compliance matters that the Act specifically assigns to the Tribunal.

Matters under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

For corporate persons, the NCLT is the Adjudicating Authority. Its insolvency jurisdiction includes:

• applications to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process — by a financial creditor under Section 7, by an operational creditor under Section 9, and by the corporate applicant itself under Section 10;
• approval or rejection of a resolution plan, and the consequential orders;
• orders directing liquidation, and applications arising during liquidation;
• voluntary liquidation of corporate persons;
• applications concerning avoidance of preferential, undervalued, extortionate or fraudulent transactions; and
• insolvency resolution and bankruptcy of personal guarantors to corporate debtors, in the circumstances for which the Code provides.

What does not go to the NCLT

This is where most misdirected filings arise.

An ordinary breach of contract between two companies is a civil or commercial court matter, or an arbitration, depending on the contract. It does not become an NCLT matter because both parties are companies.

A genuine and pre-existing dispute about an operational debt is a bar to admission of a Section 9 application; the Code is not a debt-collection mechanism, and a creditor who uses it as one is likely to be turned away and may face costs.

Employment and service disputes go to the labour and industrial forums or the civil court. Consumer complaints go to the consumer commissions. Tax disputes go to the machinery under the relevant tax statute. Criminal complaints, including those alleging fraud, go to the criminal courts, although the Tribunal may make references where the Companies Act or the Code so provides.

Disputes between shareholders that are in substance contractual — a share purchase agreement, a shareholders’ agreement containing an arbitration clause — may fall outside Sections 241 and 242 unless the conduct complained of amounts to oppression or mismanagement of the company’s affairs.

Choosing the right entry point

Three questions resolve most cases.

Is the grievance about the conduct of the company’s affairs, or about a debt? Conduct points to the Companies Act jurisdiction; an unpaid, undisputed debt above the statutory threshold points to the Code.

Is there a genuine pre-existing dispute? If so, the insolvency route is likely closed, and the remedy lies in the civil court or in arbitration.

Where is the registered office? That determines the bench.

Selecting the wrong forum is expensive in a way that is easy to underestimate. An insolvency application filed to pressure a counterparty in a disputed contractual claim is not merely dismissed; it can attract adverse costs and can prejudice the applicant’s position in the underlying dispute. Conversely, a shareholder with a genuine oppression grievance who files a civil suit may find years pass before the question of forum is even resolved.

Frequently Asked Questions 

What matters can be filed before the NCLT?

The NCLT hears matters specifically assigned to it under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including insolvency proceedings, oppression and mismanagement, company schemes and certain shareholder disputes.

Does every dispute between two companies go to the NCLT?

No. A contractual or commercial dispute between companies does not automatically fall within NCLT jurisdiction. Depending on the nature of the dispute, it may belong before a civil or commercial court or an arbitral tribunal.

Which NCLT Bench has jurisdiction over a company?

Generally, territorial jurisdiction is determined by the company’s registered office, subject to the applicable notification governing NCLT bench jurisdiction.

What is the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench?

The NCLT Ahmedabad Bench is the Tribunal bench exercising jurisdiction over companies and matters assigned to it under the applicable territorial jurisdiction notification, including companies having their registered offices in Gujarat.

Can a Section 9 IBC application be filed when there is a pre-existing dispute?

Generally, no. A genuine pre-existing dispute regarding an operational debt can prevent admission of a Section 9 IBC application, because the insolvency process cannot be used as a debt-recovery mechanism.

Legal Information Disclaimer

This article is published for general legal information and educational purposes only. It reflects the position of Indian law as researched up to 10 August 2026 and may not account for subsequent amendments, notifications, rule changes or judicial developments. It is not legal advice, does not take into account any individual’s particular facts or circumstances, and no advocate-client relationship arises from reading it. Outcomes in litigation depend on the specific facts of each case and on procedural requirements in force at the relevant time. Readers dealing with an actual dispute should obtain independent professional advice from a qualified advocate of their own choosing before acting on any information contained here.

Sources / Authorities

• Companies Act, 2013 — Sections 59, 66, 230 to 232, 241, 242, 245 and 271 — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 7, 9 and 10 and the provisions governing liquidation, voluntary liquidation, avoidance transactions and personal guarantors — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• National Company Law Tribunal — constitution, benches and territorial jurisdiction as notified; current bench allocation available at https://www.nclt.gov.in

The post NCLT Ahmedabad Jurisdiction: Which Disputes Can Be Filed Before the Bench? appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Executive Summary

The distinction between an operational creditor and a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” or “the Code”) is one of the most consequential classifications in contemporary Indian insolvency law. Understanding the nuances of the operational vs financial creditor IBC framework determines not merely the procedural pathway a creditor must adopt when initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”), but also the substantive rights that creditor enjoys throughout the resolution and, if necessary, liquidation proceedings. The Code draws a sharp and deliberate line between these two categories, conferring markedly different thresholds, procedural obligations, evidentiary standards, participatory rights, and priority entitlements upon each. This article offers a systematic, academically rigorous examination of the statutory definitions, applicable thresholds, procedural requirements, and leading judicial interpretations governing the operational creditor vs financial creditor under IBC distinction in India as of June 2026.

Statutory Framework

Definitional Foundations

The IBC, as originally enacted by Parliament in 2016 and subsequently amended, defines the two categories of creditors in Section 5 of the Code. Section 5(7) defines a “financial creditor” as any person to whom a “financial debt” is owed, and includes a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred. Section 5(8) defines “financial debt” as a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. This definition is notable for its breadth: it encompasses money borrowed against repayment, amounts raised by acceptance under any instrument, amounts raised pursuant to any note purchase facility or the issue of bonds, notes, debentures, loan stock, or similar instruments, amounts raised under letters of credit or banker’s acceptances, amounts raised under a hire purchase or finance lease, receivables sold or discounted other than on a non-recourse basis, amounts raised under any forward sale or purchase agreement, liabilities under any derivative transaction, debenture holder protections, amounts raised by financial institutions and certain regulatory bodies, and any other transaction having the commercial effect of a borrowing.

Section 5(20) defines an “operational creditor” as a person to whom an “operational debt” is owed, and includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred. Section 5(21) defines “operational debt” as a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services, including employment, or a debt in respect of repayment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government, or any local authority. The critical distinction, therefore, rests not on the legal character of the creditor but on the nature of the underlying obligation: whether it arises from a financing transaction premised on the time value of money or from a commercial transaction involving the supply of goods, rendering of services, or an employment relationship.

Threshold Requirements

Parliament significantly raised the minimum pecuniary threshold for filing an application under the Code through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, which was subsequently enacted into law. As of June 2026, both financial creditors under Section 7 and operational creditors under Section 9 of the Code must satisfy a minimum default threshold of rupees one crore before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) will entertain their application. This threshold was raised from the original figure of rupees one lakh, representing a hundred-fold increase designed to filter out applications concerning relatively minor commercial disputes and to reduce the burden on the tribunal system.

Section 7: The Financial Creditor’s Application

Section 7 of the Code governs applications by financial creditors to initiate CIRP against a corporate debtor. The section permits a financial creditor, either alone or jointly with other financial creditors, to file an application before the NCLT when a corporate debtor has committed a default in repayment of a financial debt. The NCLT, upon receipt of such an application, must ascertain whether a default has occurred, verify that the application is complete, and satisfy itself that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional. Crucially, Section 7 imposes no prior notice requirement upon financial creditors. The financial creditor may proceed directly to the NCLT upon the occurrence of a default without first demanding payment from the corporate debtor or awaiting a specified response period.

Section 9: The Operational Creditor’s Application

Section 9 of the Code, read alongside Section 8, prescribes a more structured and sequentially layered procedural mechanism for operational creditors. An operational creditor is not permitted to approach the NCLT directly upon default. Section 8 mandates that the operational creditor must first deliver a demand notice to the corporate debtor, or deliver a copy of an invoice demanding payment, before filing any application. This demand notice must be delivered to the corporate debtor in the manner prescribed under the Code. Upon receipt of such a demand notice, the corporate debtor has ten days within which to either bring the default to the notice of the operational creditor and notify the creditor of the pendency of a dispute, or repay the unpaid operational debt. Only after this mandatory ten-day period has elapsed, and the corporate debtor has neither disputed the claim nor made repayment, may the operational creditor approach the NCLT under Section 9.

Procedural Landscape

The Section 7 Pathway: A Streamlined Route

The procedural architecture for financial creditors under Section 7 reflects Parliament’s recognition that financial debt ordinarily arises from formally documented lending transactions characterised by precise terms, interest rates, repayment schedules, and default clauses. Given this documentary clarity, the legislature dispensed with any pre-filing notice requirement for financial creditors. The financial creditor files an application before the NCLT in the prescribed form, accompanied by the record of default maintained with an information utility, or such other evidence of default as may be prescribed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”). Once the application is filed and the NCLT is satisfied that a default has occurred, the tribunal is required to admit the application within fourteen days of its receipt, subject to the application being complete and no disciplinary proceeding being pending against the proposed insolvency professional.

The Section 9 Pathway: Mandatory Demand Notice and Pre-Filing Conditions

The procedural journey for operational creditors involves three distinct stages. In the first stage, the operational creditor delivers a demand notice under Section 8(1) to the registered office of the corporate debtor, claiming the unpaid operational debt. In the second stage, a period of ten days must elapse from the date of delivery of the demand notice. During this period, the corporate debtor may either repay the debt or communicate to the operational creditor the existence of a dispute that was raised before the date of the demand notice. In the third stage, if neither repayment nor a credible notice of dispute is received, the operational creditor may file an application before the NCLT under Section 9 in the prescribed form.

The NCLT, upon receipt of a Section 9 application, must ascertain whether the application is complete, verify that no notice of dispute has been received from the corporate debtor, and confirm that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed insolvency professional. Unlike the Section 7 framework, the NCLT in a Section 9 proceeding must also satisfy itself that the undisputed amount of the operational debt exceeds the prescribed threshold and that the debt has not been repaid.

Rights Within the CIRP: The Committee of Creditors

One of the most consequential distinctions between financial creditors and operational creditors under the IBC manifests itself not at the application stage but during the conduct of the CIRP. Under Section 21 of the Code, the insolvency resolution professional is required to constitute a Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) comprising all financial creditors of the corporate debtor, with voting shares assigned in proportion to the financial debts owed to each financial creditor. Operational creditors are entirely excluded from voting membership of the CoC. They are granted a limited right of representation and participation in CoC meetings only where their aggregate dues meet or exceed ten percent of the total debt, but even in this circumstance, they do not possess any voting rights. All substantive decisions during the CIRP — including approval of the resolution plan, extension of the resolution period, and replacement of the resolution professional — are made exclusively by the financial creditors through the CoC.

Key Judicial Precedents

Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 1 SCC 353

The single most important judicial pronouncement concerning the rights of operational creditors under the Code is the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., reported at (2018) 1 SCC 353. In this case, the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret the phrase “existence of dispute” as it appears in Sections 8 and 9 of the Code. The court definitively held that the expression “existence of dispute” must be construed broadly and not narrowly. The threshold for establishing the existence of a dispute, for the purpose of defeating a Section 9 application, is not the same as the threshold required to prove the dispute itself. The Supreme Court clarified that the NCLT must be satisfied merely that there is a plausible contention requiring further investigation, not that the corporate debtor must prove that the operational debt is, in fact, disputed. Once a genuine pre-existing dispute has been raised — meaning a dispute that existed prior to the delivery of the demand notice — the NCLT must reject the Section 9 application. The court used the test of whether the dispute was “spurious, hypothetical, illusory, or not bona fide” to determine whether it ought to be treated as raising a genuine dispute. This expansive interpretation of “existence of dispute” has proved to be the most potent and frequently invoked defence available to corporate debtors facing Section 9 applications.

Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17

In Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17, the Supreme Court was called upon to adjudicate a constitutional challenge to, among other provisions, the differential treatment accorded to financial and operational creditors under the Code. The court upheld the constitutional validity of this differential treatment, observing that the Code’s classification rests on intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the legislation. The court noted that financial creditors are typically sophisticated institutional lenders who engage with the corporate debtor from the inception of the financial arrangement, and that their class-based exclusivity in the CoC serves the Code’s overarching objective of facilitating time-bound resolution of corporate insolvency.

Priority Under Section 53: The Liquidation Waterfall

Section 53 of the Code prescribes the order of priority for distribution of proceeds in liquidation. Secured financial creditors are accorded the highest priority following the expenses of liquidation. Unsecured financial creditors and workmen’s dues for the preceding twenty-four months rank next. Operational creditors rank below financial creditors in the liquidation waterfall, receiving distribution from the residual proceeds after financial creditors have been substantially satisfied. This statutory priority structure reinforces the primacy of financial creditors not merely in governance during the CIRP but also in the recovery of dues upon liquidation.

Comparative Table: Financial Creditor vs. Operational Creditor Under IBC

Conclusion

The operational vs financial creditor IBC framework represents one of the most carefully calibrated and consequential classifications in Indian insolvency law. Parliament has constructed a system in which the nature of the underlying debt — rather than the identity or economic significance of the creditor — determines both the procedural obligations attending the initiation of CIRP and the substantive rights available throughout the resolution lifecycle. Financial creditors, by virtue of their foundational role in corporate financing, are accorded a streamlined path to the NCLT, full governance rights through the CoC, and superior priority in liquidation. Operational creditors, whose claims arise from the supply of goods, services, or employment, must navigate a mandatory pre-filing notice regime and face the formidable “existence of dispute” defence as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations.

The minimum threshold of rupees one crore, uniformly applicable to both categories since the 2020 amendment, ensures that the CIRP mechanism is directed towards economically significant defaults rather than routine commercial recovery disputes. The constitutional validity of the differential treatment accorded to the two categories has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons, lending doctrinal stability to the architecture.

For practitioners, academics, and creditors engaged with the Indian insolvency framework, a precise understanding of these distinctions is indispensable. The choice of statutory mechanism, the timing of demand notices, the manner of preserving or challenging the existence of disputes, and the strategic implications of CoC exclusion are all questions that flow directly from the foundational classification established by Sections 5(7) and 5(20) of the Code. As India’s insolvency jurisprudence continues to mature through ongoing judicial pronouncements and regulatory evolution under the IBBI, the financial creditor and operational creditor distinction will remain the load-bearing axis around which creditor rights and corporate resolution strategy are organised.

The post Operational vs Financial Creditor Under IBC: Filing Strategy and Thresholds appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The intersection of insolvency law and criminal liability has emerged as one of the most debated areas in contemporary Indian jurisprudence. The Bombay High Court’s recent judgment delivered by Justice M.M. Nerlikar on October 1, 2025, at the Nagpur Bench has reinforced a critical legal position: directors and officers of a company cannot escape their Personal Criminal Liability of Directors Under Section 138 for offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) merely because insolvency proceedings have been initiated against their company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). This ruling addresses the growing concern among creditors about whether company directors could use insolvency proceedings as a shield against prosecution for cheque dishonour, thereby undermining commercial morality and the sanctity of negotiable instruments.

The case involved M/s. Anand Distilleries and its directors who sought discharge from a criminal complaint for cheque dishonour on the ground that insolvency proceedings were initiated against the company before the cheque bounced. The High Court’s decision clarifies that the timing of IBC proceedings—whether initiated before or after the cause of action under the Section 138 NI Act arises—is immaterial to the personal criminal liability of directors. This judgment reinforces the principle that while corporate entities may receive protection under insolvency moratorium, natural persons who were responsible for the affairs of the company when the offence was committed remain accountable under criminal law.

Understanding Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was enacted to provide a legal framework for the use of negotiable instruments like cheques, promissory notes, and bills of exchange in commercial transactions. Section 138 was introduced through an amendment in 1988 to address the growing problem of cheque dishonour, which was eroding trust in commercial dealings and hampering business transactions. The provision criminalizes the dishonour of cheques issued in discharge of legal liability or debt.

Section 138 states that where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid for reasons of insufficient funds or that it exceeds the arrangement made, and the payee or holder makes a demand for payment through notice within thirty days of receiving information from the bank, and the drawer fails to make payment within fifteen days of receipt of such notice, the drawer shall be deemed to have committed an offence. The punishment prescribed includes imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both.

The offence under Section 138 is complemented by Section 141 of the NI Act, which extends criminal liability to persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time the offence was committed. This vicarious liability provision is central to how courts assess the personal criminal liability of directors under Section 138, ensuring that directors, managers, and other officers cannot hide behind the corporate veil when a company commits the offence of cheque dishonour. The provision creates a presumption of culpability against such persons unless they can prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

The quasi-criminal nature of proceedings under Section 138 distinguishes them from purely civil recovery proceedings. While the primary objective is to facilitate debt recovery through the threat of criminal sanctions, the proceedings follow criminal procedure and result in criminal consequences including imprisonment. This dual character has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation, particularly in understanding how such proceedings interact with other laws like the IBC.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Moratorium Provisions

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was enacted as comprehensive legislation to consolidate and amend laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms, and individuals in a time-bound manner. The Code represents a paradigm shift from the debtor-in-possession model to a creditor-in-control regime, aimed at maximizing the value of assets and promoting entrepreneurship by balancing the interests of all stakeholders.

Section 14 of the IBC is a crucial provision that declares a moratorium upon admission of an insolvency application. The moratorium provision states that on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare that the moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order. During the moratorium period, several actions are prohibited including the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, execution of any judgment, decree or order against the corporate debtor, any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor, and the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.

The purpose of the moratorium is multifold. It provides breathing space to the corporate debtor to enable the resolution professional to assess the viability of the business, prepare an information memorandum, and invite resolution plans from prospective resolution applicants. It prevents a race among creditors to enforce their claims, which could lead to the dismemberment of the corporate debtor’s assets and destroy its value as a going concern. The moratorium creates a level playing field where all creditors’ claims are dealt with in a collective and orderly manner rather than through individual enforcement actions.

However, the scope and extent of the moratorium have been subjects of intense litigation and judicial interpretation. A critical question has been whether the moratorium extends to criminal proceedings, particularly those under Section 138 of the NI Act. This question becomes even more complex when examining whether the moratorium protects not just the corporate debtor but also its directors and officers who face personal liability under criminal law. The law has evolved through several landmark Supreme Court judgments that have attempted to delineate the boundaries of moratorium protection in the context of different types of proceedings.

Evolution of Judicial Interpretation: Supreme Court Precedents

The judicial understanding of the interplay between the IBC moratorium and Section 138 proceedings has evolved significantly through several landmark Supreme Court decisions. These judgments have progressively clarified the scope of moratorium protection and its applicability to different categories of defendants and different stages of proceedings.

In the landmark judgment of P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., decided on March 1, 2021, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court examined whether proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act against a corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC [1]. The Court held that when a moratorium order is passed under the IBC, parallel proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act against the corporate debtor cannot be allowed to continue. The Court reasoned that proceedings under Section 138 and 141 of the NI Act are quasi-criminal in nature and would amount to a proceeding within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC. The judgment emphasized that the legislative intent behind the moratorium was to provide a peaceful period for the resolution professional to attempt to revive the corporate debtor as a going concern.

The Court in P. Mohanraj analyzed the nature of proceedings under Chapter XVII of the NI Act and concluded that despite having criminal elements, these proceedings are fundamentally about debt recovery. The judgment stated that the object of the IBC is to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor by protecting the corporate debtor from its own management and from a corporate death by liquidation. The moratorium provision ensures that during the resolution process, the assets of the corporate debtor remain intact and are not depleted by individual enforcement actions. The Court explicitly held that continuing with Section 138 proceedings would defeat the very purpose of the moratorium as it would deplete the financial resources of the corporate debtor through fines and legal costs.

However, the P. Mohanraj judgment specifically dealt with proceedings against the corporate debtor itself, not its directors or officers. This distinction became crucial in subsequent litigation where directors sought to extend the benefit of moratorium to themselves. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in later judgments, particularly in the context of whether natural persons could claim immunity from Section 138 proceedings by virtue of their company being under insolvency resolution.

The Supreme Court further clarified the position regarding directors and officers in multiple subsequent decisions. In Sandeep Gupta v. Shri Ram Steel Traders decided by the Delhi High Court in 2023, the court held that Section 96 of the IBC concerning pre-packaged insolvency would not apply when a person is arrayed as an accused in a complaint under Section 138 in his capacity as a director of a company [2]. The judgment emphasized that the debt in question belonged to the company, not the director personally, but Section 141 of the NI Act fastens liability on every officer who was in management and control of the company’s affairs. This vicarious liability is personal to the director and cannot be extinguished by moratorium proceedings against the company.

The principle emerging from these cases is clear: while the corporate entity receives protection under the moratorium, natural persons who are liable under Section 141 of the NI Act remain exposed to criminal prosecution [3]. The moratorium cannot be used as a device to shield individual wrongdoers from facing consequences for offences committed while they were managing the company. This interpretation ensures that the protective mechanism of insolvency law does not become a refuge for those who have acted irresponsibly or fraudulently in their capacity as company directors or officers.

The Bombay High Court’s Decision: Case Analysis

The Bombay High Court judgment in the Ortho Relief Hospital and Research Centre case presents a critical clarification on the personal criminal liability of directors under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly in relation to insolvency proceedings. This detailed application of legal principles addresses a crucial question: can directors escape their personal criminal liability by invoking insolvency proceedings against their company?

The chronology of events in this case was particularly significant. In February 2018, Punjab National Bank initiated insolvency proceedings against M/s. Anand Distilleries under the IBC. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the petition on February 14, 2018, which triggered the moratorium under Section 14 and led to the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. The petitioner hospital, being a creditor, lodged its claim with the resolution professional as required under the IBC process.

After the moratorium was declared, the directors of the company allegedly reassured the petitioner and asked them to present the cheque for encashment. When the cheque was presented on December 14, 2018, it was dishonoured with the remark of insufficient funds. Following the statutory procedure under the NI Act, the petitioner issued a legal notice on January 5, 2019, giving the drawer an opportunity to make payment within fifteen days. When no payment was received, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

The trial court, however, allowed an application filed by the directors on January 31, 2025, and discharged them from the criminal proceedings. The trial court’s reasoning was that since insolvency proceedings were initiated against the company before the cheque was dishonoured, the subsequent criminal complaint was barred by the moratorium provisions of the IBC. This interpretation suggested that the timing of the initiation of IBC proceedings was determinative of whether Section 138 proceedings could be maintained.

The petitioner challenged this discharge order before the Bombay High Court, represented by Advocate S.S. Dewani. The petitioner’s primary argument was that proceedings under the NI Act are penal in nature and fundamentally different from recovery proceedings under the IBC. It was contended that an approved resolution plan under the IBC pertains to the corporate debtor’s liabilities and does not absolve directors from their Personal Criminal Liability of Directors Under Section 138, which flows independently through Section 141 of the NI Act. The petitioner emphasized that directors, being natural persons, remain statutorily liable for prosecution regardless of any moratorium applicable to the corporate entity.

The respondent directors, represented by Advocate S.D. Khati, placed significant emphasis on the timeline of events. They argued that the IBC proceedings and moratorium were initiated on February 14, 2018, well before the cause of action for the Section 138 complaint arose through cheque dishonour on December 14, 2018. Their contention was that Section 14 of the IBC bars the institution of any legal proceedings against the corporate debtor after a moratorium is declared, and this bar should logically extend to directors who are prosecuted solely by virtue of their connection with the company. They sought to distinguish their case from situations where the cause of action arose before IBC proceedings, arguing that the temporal sequence was material to determining liability.

Justice M.M. Nerlikar framed the central legal question succinctly: whether prior initiation of proceedings under the IBC would frustrate the claim of the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act. After examining the Supreme Court precedents, the High Court concluded that the law on this issue is well-settled and the timing argument advanced by the respondents was legally untenable.

The High Court held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies only to the corporate debtor, and natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continue to remain liable, reaffirming the personal criminal liability of directors under section 138 irrespective of insolvency proceedings. The judgment emphasized that proceedings under Section 138 are not recovery proceedings but are penal in nature, aimed at upholding the integrity of commercial transactions and maintaining faith in negotiable instruments. The personal penal liability of directors continues because such liability flows from their role in managing the company when the offence was committed, not merely from their association with the company.

The court explicitly rejected the timing argument, stating: “From the above discussion it is clear that it makes no difference whether the proceedings are initiated prior to initiation of IB Code proceeding or thereafter. The Supreme Court has in unequivocal terms held that natural persons cannot escape from their personal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act.” This categorical statement eliminates any ambiguity about whether the sequence of events affects the liability of directors under the NI Act.

The judgment further clarified that criminal proceedings do not fall under the category of proceedings that are to be kept in abeyance under Section 14 of the IBC when it comes to personal liability of directors and officers. The court held that the trial court had committed a gross error in allowing the discharge application and thereby discharging the accused directors. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the trial court’s orders, and directed that the criminal complaint against the directors would proceed to trial. The court also rejected the respondents’ request to stay the judgment, indicating confidence in the correctness of its legal position.

Regulatory Framework Governing Directors’ Liability

The liability of company directors under Indian law is governed by a complex regulatory framework that spans multiple statutes including the Companies Act, 2013, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Understanding this framework is essential to appreciate how directors can be held personally liable for corporate defaults.

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a specific statutory regime for holding company officials accountable for offences committed by the company. The provision states that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This creates a presumption of culpability against directors and managing directors, subject to proving that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that to make a director liable under Section 141, it must be shown that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. Merely being a director is not sufficient unless the role is clearly established. However, once it is shown that a person was a director and was responsible for the affairs of the company, the burden shifts to that person to prove that they had no knowledge of the offence or had exercised due diligence.

When a director signs a cheque on behalf of the company, they are acting in their official capacity as a corporate agent. However, the personal criminal liability of directors under Section 138 that may arise from the cheque’s dishonour is distinctly personal and cannot be deflected onto the corporate entity. This is because the criminal liability relates directly to the individual director’s role in the decision-making process that led to the dishonour.

The IBC adds another layer to this framework. While Section 14 provides moratorium protection to the corporate debtor, Section 32A of the IBC specifically addresses criminal liability in approved resolution plans. This provision states that where the Adjudicating Authority has approved a resolution plan, no action shall be taken against the property of the corporate debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process. However, this protection extends only to the corporate debtor and its properties, not to any person other than the corporate debtor who is involved in the commission of such an offence.

The distinction drawn by Section 32A is critical. It recognizes that while the corporate debtor should be allowed a fresh start under an approved resolution plan, individuals who committed offences while managing the company should not escape personal accountability. This ensures that insolvency resolution does not become a mechanism for personal immunity from criminal prosecution [5].

The interplay between these provisions creates a nuanced system where corporate rehabilitation is balanced against individual accountability. The corporate entity may be protected to enable its revival, but those who were responsible for decisions leading to criminal offences remain answerable under law. This prevents moral hazard where directors might engage in reckless or fraudulent conduct knowing that subsequent insolvency proceedings would shield them from consequences.

Distinction Between Corporate and Personal Liability

One of the fundamental principles established through judicial interpretation is the clear distinction between the corporate entity and the natural persons who manage it. This distinction is rooted in the basic principle of corporate law that a company is a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders and directors. However, this separation does not mean that individuals can always escape liability for corporate wrongdoing.

When a cheque issued by a company is dishonoured, two parallel liabilities are created under the NI Act. First, the company as the drawer of the cheque is liable under Section 138. Second, by virtue of Section 141, directors and officers who were in charge of the company’s affairs at the relevant time also become personally liable. These are distinct liabilities even though they arise from the same wrongful act.

The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC operates only on the corporate debtor. The term corporate debtor is specifically defined in Section 3(8) of the IBC to mean a corporate person who owes a debt to any person. This definition does not include natural persons who are directors or officers of the corporate debtor. Therefore, when a moratorium is declared, it freezes actions against the corporate debtor but does not automatically extend to individuals connected with that corporate debtor.

This distinction has important practical implications. When the NCLT admits an insolvency application and declares a moratorium, creditors cannot proceed with recovery actions against the company, attach its properties, or continue litigation against it for recovery of debts. However, these restrictions do not prevent creditors from proceeding against directors who are personally liable under statutory provisions like Section 141 of the NI Act [6].

The rationale for maintaining this distinction is grounded in both legal principle and policy considerations. From a legal standpoint, criminal liability is personal and cannot be diluted by corporate insolvency. The offence under Section 138 involves elements of mens rea and actus reus that are attributable to individuals who made decisions on behalf of the company. These individuals had the power to ensure that cheques issued by the company would be honored, and their failure to do so attracts personal criminal liability.

From a policy perspective, allowing directors to escape prosecution by hiding behind corporate insolvency would undermine the entire purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act. The provision was enacted to restore credibility to negotiable instruments and ensure that parties who issue cheques do so responsibly. If directors knew they could avoid prosecution through insolvency proceedings, it would incentivize irresponsible issuance of cheques and erode commercial morality.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that the IBC is designed to provide a fresh start to the corporate entity as a going concern, not to provide immunity to individuals who may have engaged in wrongful conduct. The resolution plan under the IBC addresses the debts and liabilities of the company, not the criminal liability of individuals. An approved resolution plan may release the company from its financial obligations, but it cannot extinguish the criminal prosecution of directors who were responsible for offences committed during their tenure.

Impact on Commercial Transactions and Creditor Protection

The Bombay High Court’s judgment has significant implications for commercial transactions and creditor rights in India. By clarifying that directors remain personally liable for cheque dishonour regardless of insolvency proceedings against the company, the judgment strengthens the deterrent effect of Section 138 and enhances creditor protection.

In commercial practice, cheques serve as important instruments of credit and payment. Businesses routinely accept post-dated cheques as security for loans and advances, relying on the legal consequences of dishonour as a safeguard against default. If directors could escape liability by initiating insolvency proceedings against the company after issuing cheques, it would significantly undermine the utility of cheques as security instruments. Creditors would become reluctant to accept cheques, leading to increased transaction costs and reduced liquidity in commercial dealings.

The judgment ensures that creditors who have accepted cheques as security retain meaningful recourse against responsible individuals even when the corporate entity enters insolvency. This is particularly important for small and medium enterprises that often extend credit to larger companies based on the assurance provided by cheques signed by responsible directors. These creditors may not have the resources to conduct extensive due diligence or secure complex collateral arrangements, and they rely heavily on the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution under Section 138.

The decision also addresses a potential avenue for abuse where unscrupulous directors might deliberately trigger insolvency proceedings after issuing multiple cheques to different creditors, hoping to escape personal liability. By holding that the timing of IBC proceedings is irrelevant to directors’ liability under Section 138, the court eliminates this possibility and ensures that individuals cannot strategically use insolvency law to evade criminal consequences [7].

However, the judgment also maintains a balance by recognizing that not all directors are automatically liable. The requirement under Section 141 that the accused must have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business provides a safeguard against indiscriminate prosecution of all directors. Nominee directors, independent directors, or those who had no role in the financial decisions leading to the dishonour can potentially defend themselves by demonstrating their lack of involvement.

From the perspective of insolvency resolution, the judgment does not hinder the IBC process. The corporate debtor continues to receive moratorium protection, allowing the resolution professional to work on revival plans without interference from individual creditors. The continuation of criminal proceedings against directors operates on a parallel track and does not impede the collective resolution process. In fact, by maintaining pressure on directors who were responsible for the company’s financial mismanagement, it may incentivize better cooperation with the resolution process and more realistic resolution proposals.

Comparative Analysis with Personal Insolvency Provisions

An interesting dimension of the legal framework is the treatment of directors under personal insolvency provisions. Section 96 of the IBC deals with interim moratorium in personal insolvency cases. When an individual debtor files an application for initiating a resolution process, an interim moratorium period commences during which various actions against the debtor are prohibited.

Several directors who faced Section 138 prosecution have attempted to invoke Section 96 by filing personal insolvency applications, arguing that they should receive moratorium protection in their individual capacity. However, courts have consistently rejected this argument, holding that directors cannot escape their vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the NI Act by resorting to personal insolvency proceedings [8].

The Delhi High Court in Sandeep Gupta v. Shri Ram Steel Traders explicitly addressed this issue, holding that Section 96 of the IBC would not be applicable when a person is arrayed as an accused in a complaint under Section 138 in his capacity as a director of a company. The court reasoned that the debt for which the cheque was issued belonged to the company, not the director personally. The director’s liability under Section 141 is not because he owes the debt but because he was responsible for the company’s conduct when it committed the offence—an approach that reflects how courts have treated the personal criminal liability of directors under Section 138 as independent of any insolvency process.

This distinction is crucial. Personal insolvency provisions are designed to provide relief to individual debtors who are unable to pay their personal debts. They are not intended to shield individuals from criminal liability arising from their role in corporate management. If directors could use personal insolvency to avoid Section 138 prosecution, it would create an absurd situation where any person facing criminal prosecution could escape by declaring personal insolvency.

The courts have emphasized that criminal liability is not a debt that can be discharged through insolvency. The punishment under Section 138 includes both fine and imprisonment, and the imprisonment aspect cannot be addressed through any insolvency mechanism. Even if the fine component could theoretically be considered a debt, the criminal nature of the proceedings and the imprisonment sanction distinguish them from ordinary debt recovery.

Conclusion and Future Implications

The Bombay High Court’s judgment represents an important affirmation of established legal principles regarding the interplay between insolvency law and criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. By holding that directors cannot escape their personal liability for cheque dishonour by relying on insolvency proceedings against the company, the court has strengthened creditor protection and maintained the deterrent effect of Section 138.

The judgment resolves an important question about timing by clarifying that it is immaterial whether IBC proceedings were initiated before or after the cause of action under Section 138 arose. What matters is whether the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company’s affairs at the time the cheque was issued and dishonoured. This temporal neutrality prevents strategic manipulation of insolvency law to evade criminal liability.

Looking forward, this judgment is likely to significantly influence how directors approach their responsibilities in managing company finances. With the law now clarifying that Personal Criminal Liability of Directors Under Section 138 cannot be avoided through corporate insolvency proceedings, directors have a stronger incentive to maintain responsible financial stewardship and ensure stricter compliance in all cheque-related transactions.

For creditors, the judgment provides assurance that accepting cheques as security remains meaningful even in situations where the debtor company subsequently faces insolvency. This is particularly valuable for small creditors who may not have sophisticated security arrangements and rely primarily on the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution [9].

The decision also contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on the scope and limits of moratorium protection under the IBC. While the Code provides powerful tools for corporate rehabilitation, it does not create a zone of absolute immunity. The balance struck by courts between protecting viable businesses and ensuring individual accountability is essential for maintaining trust in both the insolvency system and the broader commercial ecosystem.

As insolvency law continues to develop in India, the principles established in this judgment will serve as important guideposts. They affirm that corporate rehabilitation and individual accountability are not mutually exclusive objectives but can coexist within a coherent legal framework. The judgment demonstrates judicial commitment to preventing the abuse of beneficial legislation while ensuring that legitimate creditor rights are protected.

References

[1] Supreme Court of India. (2021). P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/s. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 258. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97452657/ 

[2] Delhi High Court. (2023). Sandeep Gupta v. Shri Ram Steel Traders & Anr., CRL.M.C. 381/2022. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/03/17/initiation-ibc-proceedings-does-not-absolve-company-director-signatories-of-criminal-liability-under-section-138-negotiable-instruments-act-supreme-court-legal-research-news-updates/ 

[3] LiveLaw. (2021). Moratorium Under Section 14 IBC Covers Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Against Corporate Debtor. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/moratorium-under-section-14-ibc-covers-section-138-ni-act-proceedings-against-corporate-debtor-supreme-court-170508 

[4] Bombay High Court. (2025). Ortho Relief Hospital and Research Centre v. M/s. Anand Distilleries & Ors., decided on October 1, 2025. Available at: https://lawtrend.in/prior-ibc-proceedings-do-not-bar-section-138-ni-act-action-against-company-directors-bombay-hc/ 

[5] Bar & Bench. (2021). Moratorium order under Section 14 IBC bars parallel proceedings against Corporate Debtor under Section 138 of NI Act. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/moratorium-order-section-14-ibc-bars-parallel-proceedings-section-138-negotiable-instruments-act-supreme-court 

[6] SCC Online. (2023). Liability of the Erstwhile Directors: Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act versus Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/10/12/liability-of-the-erstwhile-directors-section-138-negotiable-instruments-act-versus-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/ 

[7] LiveLaw. (2025). No S.138 NI Act Case Against Ex-Director Of Company When Cause Of Action Arose After IBC Moratorium Was Declared: Supreme Court. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/no-s138-ni-act-case-against-ex-director-of-company-when-cause-of-action-arose-after-ibc-moratorium-was-declared-supreme-court-286691 

[8] LegitEye. (2023). Only corporate debtor is protected by moratorium while signatories/directors cannot escape from their penal liability u/s 138 of NI Act. Available at: https://legiteye.com/in-crlmc-3812022-punj-hc-only-corporate-debtor-is-protected-by-moratorium-while-signatoriesdirectors-cannot-escape-from-their-penal-liability-us-138-of-ni-act-by-filing-personal-insolvency-proceedings-delhi-hc-justice-jasmeet-singh-15-05-2023/ 

[9] iPleaders. (2021). The changing dynamics of section 14 of the IBC, 2016 vis-à-vis section 138 proceeding of NI Act,1881. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/changing-dynamics-section-14-ibc-2016-vis-vis-section-138-proceeding-ni-act1881/ 

The post Personal Criminal Liability of Directors Under Section 138 NI Act Remains Unaffected by IBC Moratorium: Bombay High Court Ruling appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

In a recent judgment, the NCLT Mumbai Bench has provided important clarifications regarding the applicability of the threshold limit for initiating corporate insolvency resolution processes under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The bench addressed the critical issue of whether the minimum default amount for triggering insolvency should be considered based on the date of the demand notice or the date of filing the application.

Background of the Case

The case involved Ralco Extrusion Private Limited, an operational creditor, who filed an application against Centech Engineers Private Limited, the corporate debtor, claiming a default in payment and seeking to initiate insolvency proceedings. The operational creditor argued that the default amount and the issuance of a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC met the criteria for initiating proceedings.

Legal Analysis

Determining the Relevant Date for Threshold Limit Under IBC Application

The NCLT Mumbai Bench, comprising Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member), emphasized that for determining the applicability of the threshold limit under Section 9 of the IBC, the relevant date is the date of filing the insolvency application, not the date of issuing the demand notice.

Important Paragraph from the Judgment:

“What is relevant for determining the minimum threshold is not the date of giving notice under Section 8 but the date when the application is filed.”

Application of Threshold Limit Under IBC Post Amendment

The bench referred to the amendment to the IBC effective from March 24, 2020, which raised the minimum default amount from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore. It was highlighted that any application filed after this date must reflect a default of at least Rs. 1 crore to be considered for admission under Section 9.

Key Excerpt from the Judgment:

“It is now settled that the threshold limit of Rs.1 crore will be applicable for applications filed under Sections 7, 9, and 10 on or after 24.03.2020, even if the debt in default is on a date earlier than 24.03.2020.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for operational creditors and corporate debtors. It clarifies that operational creditors need to ensure that the default amount meets the current threshold at the time of filing the application, regardless of when the debt became due or when the demand notice was issued.

Key Considerations for Operational Creditors

– Operational creditors must assess the default amount against the threshold effective on the application filing date.

– The issuance of a demand notice prior to the amendment does not grandfather older threshold limits for applications filed post-amendment.

Conclusion: Implications of the Judgment on Threshold Limit Under IBC Application

The NCLT Mumbai Bench’s decision brings clarity to the application of threshold limits under the IBC for initiating insolvency proceedings. This ensures that creditors are aware of the requirements and that insolvency processes are initiated only when substantial default amounts are involved, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent misuse of the insolvency framework.

This judgment serves as a guiding principle for similar cases, reinforcing the importance of adhering to statutory thresholds and procedural correctness in insolvency proceedings.

The post Threshold Limit Under IBC Section 9 for Initiating Insolvency: Clarification by NCLT Mumbai Bench appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

In recent years, the landscape of insolvency and bankruptcy resolution in India has undergone significant transformations, spurred by the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Among the various mechanisms introduced to bolster the efficacy and efficiency of insolvency proceedings, the Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) stands out as a promising avenue for expeditious resolution, particularly tailored to address the unique challenges faced by Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) amidst the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction to Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP):

The Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) represents a proactive approach towards insolvency resolution, premised on the notion of pre-negotiated resolution plans between financially distressed companies and their creditors. Instituted as a distinct chapter within the IBC framework, PPIRP delineates a structured mechanism for the submission, endorsement, and implementation of pre-packaged plans, thereby expediting the resolution process while safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders involved.

Understanding the Legal Framework of Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process:

A comprehensive understanding of the legal framework governing PPIRP is imperative to discern its operational dynamics and procedural intricacies. Sections 54A to 54M of the IBC, introduced through a series of amendments, serve as the bedrock of PPIRP implementation. These sections outline eligibility criteria, procedural requirements, and regulatory mechanisms governing the initiation, approval, and execution of pre-packaged resolution plans. Key provisions include provisions for base resolution plan formulation (Section 54B), insolvency professional appointment (Section 54C), and plan implementation (Section 54G), among others.

Differentiating PPIRP from Conventional Insolvency Resolution Mechanisms:

Contrasting PPIRP with traditional Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) elucidates fundamental disparities in objectives, procedures, timelines, and stakeholder roles. While CIRP prioritizes asset maximization and broader insolvency resolution, PPIRP underscores the significance of pre-negotiated plans in expediting restructuring efforts and mitigating financial distress. By streamlining administrative processes and fostering creditor collaboration, PPIRP offers a viable alternative to conventional insolvency resolution mechanisms, particularly for MSMEs grappling with the adverse effects of the pandemic-induced economic downturn.

Analyzing the Benefits of Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process:

The benefits accrued from adopting PPIRP as a preferred mechanism for insolvency resolution are manifold. From time and cost efficiency to enhanced creditor participation and asset preservation, PPIRP offers a myriad of advantages that resonate with the evolving needs of today’s dynamic business landscape. By facilitating swift resolution, minimizing asset erosion, and fostering stakeholder engagement, PPIRP emerges as a potent tool for revitalizing financially distressed entities and steering them towards sustainable recovery.

Exploring Landmark Cases and their Implications:

Examining landmark cases wherein PPIRP has been successfully deployed provides valuable insights into its efficacy and applicability in real-world scenarios. By analyzing notable cases such as the resolution of Ruchi Soya Industries Limited’s insolvency, stakeholders can glean valuable lessons regarding the practical implementation and impact of PPIRP on corporate restructuring efforts. Moreover, such case studies serve as catalysts for informed decision-making and policy formulation aimed at optimizing the PPIRP framework for future endeavors.

Proposing Suggestions for Enhancing PPIRP Efficacy:

In light of the evolving landscape of insolvency resolution, it is imperative to proactively identify areas for improvement and refinement within the PPIRP framework. Suggestions ranging from educational initiatives aimed at MSMEs to reevaluation of connected person prohibitions underscore the importance of adaptive policymaking and stakeholder engagement in fostering a conducive environment for PPIRP adoption and implementation. By soliciting feedback, fostering collaboration, and embracing a culture of continuous improvement, policymakers can ensure that PPIRP remains a robust and responsive mechanism for addressing the evolving needs of the business ecosystem.

Conclusion:

The Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) represents a paradigm shift in the realm of insolvency resolution, offering a potent blend of expediency, efficacy, and stakeholder engagement. By harnessing the power of pre-negotiated resolution plans, PPIRP holds the potential to usher in a new era of insolvency resolution characterized by swift turnaround times, minimized asset erosion, and enhanced stakeholder participation. However, realizing this potential necessitates concerted efforts towards education, advocacy, and procedural refinement aimed at optimizing the PPIRP framework for diverse business scenarios. Through collaborative engagement and adaptive policymaking, stakeholders can unlock the full potential of PPIRP as a transformative mechanism for revitalizing financially distressed entities and fostering sustainable economic recovery.

Expanding upon the nuanced intricacies and multifaceted implications of PPIRP within the broader landscape of insolvency resolution, this discourse aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of its potential, challenges, and opportunities for future growth and refinement. By delving deeper into the operational dynamics and regulatory framework governing PPIRP, stakeholders can gain a holistic understanding of its role in reshaping the contours of insolvency resolution in India’s dynamic business environment.

The post Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP): Unraveling Its Potential in the Realm of IBC appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

In a landmark judgment delivered on 02.04.2024, the NCLAT provided crucial insights into the interpretation of financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, particularly emphasizing the broad spectrum covered by the concept of the time value of money. This judgment, *Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala Vs. Awaita Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.*, marks a pivotal step in understanding the nuances of financial transactions within the insolvency framework.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around a dispute regarding the initiation of the insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor, highlighting the intricate nature of financial debts and the encompassing scope of the time value of money.

The Core Issue: Exploring Time Value of Money

At the heart of the dispute was whether various forms of benefits or value accruing to the creditor, other than regular interest, can be considered under the ambit of the time value of money, thus constituting a financial debt.

Key Provisions and Legal Interpretations

The Concept of Financial Debt under IBC

The IBC defines financial debt as a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money.

NCLAT’s Interpretation on Time Value of Money

The tribunal elaborated that the time value of money is not confined to regular or timely returns received for the duration for which the amount is disbursed but also encompasses any other form of benefit or value accruing to the creditor as a return for providing money for a long duration.

“The concept of time value of money has nowhere been defined in the IBC. Time value of money is not only a regular or timely return received for the duration for which the amount is disbursed as an amount in addition to the principal, but also covers any other form of benefit or value accruing to the creditor as a return for providing money for a long duration.”

The Decision to Admit the Section 7 Application

The tribunal underscored that once the Adjudicating Authority is subjectively satisfied that there is a debt and a default has been committed by the Corporate Debtor, and the Section 7 application is complete in all respects, it must admit the application.

Implications of the Judgment

For Financial Creditors

This judgment broadens the scope of what can be considered as financial debt, allowing creditors to include various forms of economic benefits received over the duration of the loan as part of their claims.

For Resolution Professionals

Resolution professionals must now take a holistic view of the benefits accruing to creditors, beyond traditional interest payments, when evaluating claims and formulating resolution plans.

Impact on Insolvency Proceedings

This judgment sets a precedent for future insolvency cases, ensuring that the definition of financial debt encompasses a wider range of economic advantages, thereby protecting the rights of creditors.

Conclusion: A Milestone in Insolvency Law with Emphasis on Time Value of Money

The *Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala Vs. Awaita Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.* judgment by the NCLAT serves as a significant milestone in the evolution of insolvency law in India. By clarifying the scope of financial debt to include various forms of the time value of money, the tribunal has enhanced the framework for assessing and processing insolvency resolutions, ensuring a fair and equitable consideration of creditors’ claims.

This judgment not only aids in the precise identification and evaluation of financial debts but also fortifies the principles of justice and equity at the heart of the IBC, promoting a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to insolvency resolution in India.

The post Time Value of Money: Expanding the Horizon of Financial Debt with the NCLAT’s Verdict appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.