Case Law Details
Arcelormittal India Private Limited Vs Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Any person who wishes to submit a resolution plan, if he or it does so acting jointly, or in concert with other persons, which person or other persons happen to either manage or control or be promoters of a corporate debtor, who is classified as a non-performing asset and whose debts have not been paid off for a period of at least one year before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, becomes ineligible to submit a resolution plan. This provision therefore ensures that if a person wishes to submit a resolution plan, and if such person or any person acting jointly or any person in concert with such person, happens to either manage, control, or be promoter of a corporate debtor declared as a non-performing asset one year before the corporate insolvency resolution process begins, is ineligible to submit a resolution plan. The first proviso to sub-clause (c) makes it clear that the ineligibility can only be removed if the person submitting a resolution plan makes payment of all overdue amounts with interest thereon and charges relating to the non-performing asset in question before submission of a resolution plan. The position in law is thus clear. Any person who wishes to submit a resolution plan acting jointly or in concert with other persons, any of whom may either manage, control or be a promoter of a corporate debtor classified as a non-performing asset in the period above mentioned, must first pay off the debt of the said corporate debtor classified as a non-performing asset in order to become eligible under Section 29A(c).
The plain language of the proviso makes it clear, that ineligibility can only be removed if the necessary payment is made before submission of a resolution plan. It is not possible to accede to the argument that, commercially speaking, no person would ever make a speculative bid, where he would pay off the debt of another related corporate debtor, classified as an NPA, without being certain that his resolution plan would be accepted, as this would narrow the pool of resolution applicants to nil, and therefore stultify the object sought to be achieved by the proviso to Section 29A(c). First, it is clear that there may be persons who may submit resolution plans, either by themselves, or in concert, or jointly with other persons who do not have debts which are declared as NPAs. Also, it is very difficult to say that in no circumstance whatsoever would a person submitting a resolution plan pay off the NPA dues of another person, with whom it is acting in concert or jointly. The dues may be such that it may be worth the while of the person, together with the persons with whom he is acting in concert or jointly, to first pay off the dues of the concerned corporate debtor whose account has been declared to be an NPA, as such dues may be negligible when compared with the gaining of control of the corporate debtor that is sought to be run as a going concern as per a resolution plan submitted. It is, therefore, impossible to say that the plain, literal, meaning of the language used by the proviso leads to absurdity or hardship. This interpretation is also in line with the object sought to be achieved, namely, that other corporate debtors who are declared as NPAs, whose debts may never be cleared in full, are required to be cleared as a condition precedent to submission of a resolution plan under the Code. In order, therefore, to make the statute “workable”, as is suggested by Messrs Salve and Singhvi, we cannot disregard the plain language of the proviso and substitute words which would have the opposite effect.
In fact, even the literal language of Section 12(1) makes it clear that the provision must read as being mandatory. The expression “shall be completed” is used. Further, sub-section (3) makes it clear that the duration of 180 days may be extended further “but not exceeding 90 days”, making it clear that a maximum of 270 days is laid down statutorily. Also, the proviso to Section 12 makes it clear that the extension “shall not be granted more than once.
