Stressed Assets – A Hustle between SARFAESI and Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC)
BY AAGAM ASHIT SHAH
[21012421]
2021-2022
DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE MASTER OF LAWS (LL.M.) IN CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL LAW
PROF. PALLAVI RAJPAL [LECTURER & ASSISTANT DEAN] AT CENTRE FOR POSTGRADUATE LEGAL STUDIES
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
These days, we are observing a steep decline in the economy, the banks and Financial Institutions
(“FIs”) have increased rate of interest on loans though companies and people put there some reliance on bank’s finance to run a business. Some of these business/startups fails to achieve their milestones using that finance, results in debts. The assets that these banks or FIs had acquired becomes Stressed Asset or Non-Performing Asset (“NPA”) in their books and these banks or FIs sell their (“NPA”) to Asset Reconstruction Company (“ARC”) and take recourse under SARFAESI act, 2002 to mitigate their losses. However, steps taken under the act has not proven effective enough resulting in poor economy. But, in 2016 a code that changed statistics and seem to be structure the process of resolution and revival of business has impacted majorly, How? Let us find out!
1.1 ABSTRACT
How Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and SARFEASI are impacting in recovery of stressed assets? General idea, we all possess is that the role of ARC, established under SARFEASI to primarily resolve the issue of NPA/Bad Loan. However, relatively there were several potholes found in the law because of which borrowers use to take advantage of the same and escape from legal and moral boundaries. Eventually, recovery rate and economy of the country parallelly declined. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code came as a savior and things gradually changed. My dissertation begins by explaining the purpose of enactment of SARFAESI and IBC with respect to stressed assets and further how is ARCs involved between this process. Additionally, it seeks to focus on the shift in functioning of the process when IBC takes the stage (which is still in nature of evolution) to perform. The entry of IBC has shown a picture of drastic change in the resolution process of NPA/Bad Loan resolution, but the laws still need construction on its road. Further, it observes the impact on society. It draws a comparative analysis between SARFEASI and IBC leading to resolution of stressed assets.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
Main purpose of studying this dissertation is understanding the comparison between the two statutes for resolution of stressed resolution and the process of resolution under both the statutes.
1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This dissertation uses multiple types of research methods for different phase of my dissertation. Some of which are Qualitative method, Conceptual method, Comparative method, Descriptive method and Quantitative method etc. A short explanation for all the methods is as follows:
- Qualitative method aims at garnishing views and opinions of the author/authors and/or reference of other journal, articles, blogs etc. It relies less on pure data rather focuses on reason behind a particular
- Conceptual method means a use of literal and core sense of words of the legislation. A Literal interpretation of the words as explained by courts and legislation.
- Comparative method means a research method used for exploring perspective by comparing multiple laws on particular topic. For instance, comparing IBC and SARFAESI for timeline of completing resolution process.
- Non-Doctrinal method is a method that investigates that how different legal views impact the It is a multi-disciplinary approach.
- Doctrinal method is research with explicit meaning of law a nd its principle. It includes principles of legal findings and interpretation of law found in previously discussed cases.
-
Quantitative method is basically a collection of statistics and data that reflects the relevance of the These are research finding in numerical form.
1.4 ABBREVIATION
| Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 | IBC |
| Asset Reconstruction Company | ARC |
| Asset Management Company | AMC |
| Reserve Bank of India | RBI |
| Non-Performing Asset | NPA |
| Qualified Institutional Buyers | QIBs |
| Financial Institutions | FIs |
| Financial Year | FY |
| Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process | CIRP |
| Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions | RDDBFI |
CHAPTER 2: SHORT UNDERSTANDING OF STRESSED ASSET, SARFAESI, IBC & ARC
Stressed Assets is a crucial issue not only for Banks and FIs but also for country’s economy. Let us first understand that stressed assets are of 3 types namely, a) Non-Performing Assets, b) Restructured Loans (“Bad Loans”) and Written-off assets.
– NPA is asset when borrower principal/interest remains overdue for period of more than 90 days then the loan becomes NPA.
– Bad Loan is facilitated loans extended by repayment period of previous loan, reduction of interest rate, converting a part of loan into equity or one time settlement option, basically to recover previous loan which is declared as NPA.
– Written-off Assets are such loans that banks or FIs does not consider recording in the financial
To tackle the increased rate of stressed assets, Sarfaesi act, 2002 was enacted. This act mainly regulates ARC which are set-up for securitization & reconstruction of assets. This act allows banks & FIs to recover their NPA without intervention of courts. Further, there was letter/paper by Reserve Bank of India namely, “Study of Preventing Slippage of NPA”. In this paper, RBI suggested number of ways to tackle and prevent NPA issues and more importantly, it has highlighted that, “The Government of India has promulgated an ordinance on June 21, 2002, called “The Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002” to facilitate foreclosure of financial assets. In respect of totally unviable units as decided by the bank/consortium, action under this ordinance may be initiated without any loss of time. Banks are also strongly encouraged to take immediate recourse to this legal remedy where they encounter malfeasance on the part of promoters/borrowers.” However, as act aged, it seems that it has lost its effectiveness and seems to be time consuming.
There is another way – IBC. This act was enacted on 28th May 2016 as a watershed in heavy rain of loans default towards improving credit culture of the country after which the scenario has changed and seems to be healing faster. This Code through the time improved in recovery of debt and hence made an ease of doing business. This Code basically consolidates resolution process of various act such as Sarfaesi Act, 2002, Companies Act, 2013, RDDBFI Act, 1993 etc. into a single roof that is IBC. Hence, making resolution process much easier and time friendly.
There is yet another way that has gained much significance since 2020 and that is Bad Banks concept. Bad Banks are special banks which buys NPA of the banks and FIs for recovery and realization purpose. Bad Banks buys NPA at discounted price form existing banks & FIs to expedite recovery process by liquidating and restructuring the NPA. Generally, there are 2 types of Bad Banks:
1. Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) – is a company registered under RBI and regulated by Sarfaesi Act, 2002.
2. Asset Management Company (AMC) – is a company regulated by SEBI. Recently, government had set-up Indian Debt Resolution Company Ltd. (IDRCL) to operate as a Bad
In detail, ARC has to obtain registration under section 3 of Sarfaesi Act, 2002. It can be setup by Indian or foreign individual, companies, corporations etc. They purchase the NPA or Stressed Assets from the Banks & FIs at a discounted price, a structure of 5:95 where 5% of the asset paid to the bank as sale consideration and security receipts are issued for the remaining 95%. This structure is now amended to 15:85 ratio After, acquiring the asset, becomes the new/original lender of the borrower, ARC creates a new trust and transfers the asset which issue security receipts of balance asset value to Banks and to Qualified Institutional Buyers with returns on those security receipts, once NPA is realized. The realization of complete asset value, many a times, takes years.
On acquisition of financial assets, ARCs are required to realize the financial assets within the maximum permitted period of eight years from the date of acquisition.
Though, these days, in practice we observe that the ratio of 15:85 is not followed but more than that in Banks favor, say 50:50 or even 100% of sale consideration on NPA. These kind of transaction helps Banks to maintain their capital adequacy limit.
Main objectives of ARCs:
- Acquisition of Financial Asset – after obtaining approval from Board, the ARC shall frame a Financial Asset Acquisition policy.
- Change or takeover of management / sale or lease of business of borrower.
- Rescheduling of Debts.
- Enforcement of Security
- Settlement of dues by the borrower.
- Plan for Realization
On the other hand, AMC are registered under SEBI regulations. The main objective of these companies is to manage assets. AMC have also been used to address the degradation in value of asset, manage funds of investors etc.
CHAPTER 3: AN EXPLANATION ON SARFAESI AND IBC
A Bank or FIs, before disbursing loan, they conduct due diligence process through which loan’s risk factor can be figured. However, the concern that still haunts the economy is that the Gross NPAs of banks have increased from 2.3% in 2008 to 9.3% in 2017 and return on Assets declined from 1.1% in 2008 to 0.4% in 2017 and return on Assets declined from 1.1% in 2008 to 0.4% in 2017 and stood at INR 10.35 lakh crore by March 2018. These figures show that the increasing NPA reduce the Bank’s ability to generate future credit and thus lowering its profitability and the public trust in it.
As far as the figures of NPAs are concerned, they have increased form 38385 crores in 1995 to 71041 crores in 2011 in the public sector and from 6410 crores in 1995 to 17972 crores in 2011. The factors of growing NPAs can be internal or external. One of the studies by the RBI in which it examined 800 NPA accounts from 17 banks, revealed certain reasons behind increasing NPAs and found that the internal factors outweighed the external ones.
The major internal factors which lead to increase/rise in NPAs and being internal in nature and controllable by the Banks are namely: Defective Lending Process or Poor Lending Decision (Non execution of Principles of Safety, Principle of Liquidity and Principle of Profitability), Inappropriate Technology, Improper SWOT analysis, Poor credit appraisal system, Managerial deficiencies, Absence of regular industrial visits, Reloaning process etc.
The major external factors which lead to increase/rise in NPAs and non-controllable by Banks are, namely: Ineffective Statutory Recovery Procedures, Willful Defaults, Natural Calamities, Industrial Sickness, Lack of Demand. Change in Government Policies etc.
The data above shows serious economic problems for the country. This can result in increasing Bank’s interest rate, inflation and resulting severe other crisis in the Country.
To stabilize this downfall, there is a procedure under Sarfaesi Act, 2002 that if the borrower is unable to repay his loan, the bank or FIs sends a notice to the borrower to pay its installments due within 60 days. If borrower fails to still fails to pay its debt, then banks of FIs may take following actions against the borrower:
a) Take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realizing the asset.
b) Take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realizing the asset. However, the right shall be exercised for the substantial part of business of the borrower is held as security for the debt.
c) Appoint any person to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the
d) Require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt.
Further, to realize the asset acquired by creditors, they sell it to ARC as per 15:85 structure (15% sale consideration and 85% SRs) (as mentioned above).
However, effectiveness of ARC can be measured by the extent of SRs redeemed and the upside income earned on such SRs. As discussed elsewhere, both have been low. Some of the factors that predominantly affect the effectiveness of asset reconstruction include quality of financial assets acquired, extent of debt aggregation. ARC ability to fund the borrower, regulatory limitations and their skill sets. These also determine the methods of asset reconstruction that ARCs can gainfully deploy.
ARCs are required to resolve the assets within a maximum of 8 years of acquisition of financial assets and redeem the SRs representing the assets. Therefore, the period after FY13 has SRs for which resolution is still underway. The overall redemption of SRs issued by the ARC sector during FY04 to FY13 was 68.6% of the total value of SRs issued. The redemption of SRs issued during this period, as a percentage of the book value of stressed assets acquired, however comes down to as low as 14.29%. This implies that banks and other investors could recover only about 14% of the amount owed by their borrowers. These is shown in a below table:
| Status of SRs | ||||
| FY04-FY13 | FY14-FY21 | |||
| as % of total SRs issued | as % of Book value acquired | as % of total SRs issued | as % of Book value acquired | |
| Redeemed | 68.6% | 14.3% | 28.5% | 10.4% |
| Written off | 31.4% | 6.5% | 0.7% | 0.3% |
| Outstanding | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.8% | 25.9% |
However, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had in her February 1, 2021, Budget speech proposed a new structure for the resolution of stressed assets. The government guarantee will essentially cover the gap between the face value of the security receipts and realized value of the assets when eventually sold to the prospective buyers. The government approved a 5-year guarantee of up to Rs 30,600 crore for security receipts to be issued by NARCL as non-cash consideration on the transfer of NPAs. This will address banks/RBI concerns about incremental provisioning.
In this rapid growing economy, a period of 5 years seems equivalent to 50 years. Therefore, it not practical to consider this approach effective.
On the other hand, IBC seem very effective. It is enacted for the purpose of resolution.
The IBC provides for a single window, time-bound process for resolution of an asset with an explicit emphasis on promotion of entrepreneurship, maximisation of value of assets and balancing the interests of all stakeholders. IBC puts a time limit of 180 days (extendable by a further 90 days) within which creditors have to agree to a resolution plan, failing which the adjudicating authority under the law will pass a liquidation order on the insolvent company.
Further, the prudential Framework 2019 formulated by RBI, post the failure of the prior Framework which was struck down in the case of Dharani Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India provides for mandatory obligation on the lenders to review all accounts for a period of 30 days from the date of default during when they may decide a resolution plan. The lenders also need to sign an inter-creditor agreement and after the expiry of the review period they have 180 days to execute a resolution strategy.
Data indicates that after ARC introduction in 2003, it has been a major channel for recovery until FY19 BY that time, the Banks & FIs took more NPAs for resolution through IBC rather than ARC In FY 19 and FY 20, percentage of total amount involved in ARC was 35 and 27 where percentage of total amount recovered 32 and 30 respectively whereas percentage of total amount involved in IBC 20 and 31 where percentage of total amount recovered 56 and 61 respectively.
The statistics reference under other articles depicts the recovery of money under IBC.
Essar Steel, where the creditors managed to recover 92 per cent of Rs. 49,0000 crores of debt outstanding, Bhushan Power and Steel in which 41 per cent of Rs. 47,157 crore debt outstanding was recovered, Bhushan Steel in which 64 per cent of Rs. 56,022 crore outstanding was retrieved, and Binani Cements in whose case all of the Rs. 6,469 crore outstanding was recovered. These recovery rates are significantly higher than recorded under SARFAESI Act.
A key metric for assessing this impact is the number of CIRP applications that are withdrawn before admission. Till December 2021, 19,803 applications for initiation of CIRPs having total underlying default of `6.1 lakh crore were resolved before admission. In the absence of the Code, it is most likely that these defaults would have lingered on for much longer, resulting in value destruction.
In statistics of number of cases, 5258 insolvency cases were filed by lenders out of which 3403 cases have been closed until March this year. Of the 3403 resolved cases, nearly 47% of companies were liquidated and 17% were withdrawn after 90% of lenders agreed. Around 22% of the cases are still ongoing, while 14% of the cases, the resolutions have been approved.
CHAPTERS 4: COMPARISON BETWEEN 2 STATUTES
A connected provision is section 15(4) of the SARFAESI Act which states that the secured creditor (in this case, an ARC) shall, on full realization of debt, “restore the management of the business of the borrower to him”. The Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee (BLRC) also emphasized on this factor while reviewing ARCs as potential instruments for insolvency resolution. The mechanism is largely seen as a debt recovery tool and not an insolvency resolution tool. In the report, a thin line between ‘realization’ and ‘rescue’ was therefore drawn.Because the purpose and the aim of ARCs is to ‘realize the dues’ and reposition the creditor, in its truest sense, it does not amount to’ rescue. However, by way of the Amendment Act, 2016, in SARFAESI Act a major change was introduced. Section 15(4) now provides that if any secured creditor has converted part of its debt into shares of a borrower company together with other secured creditors or any asset rehabilitation company or financial institution or anyother assignee and thus gained a controlling interest in the borrower company, such secured creditors shall not be liable to restore the management of the borrower company’s debt.’
This preference IBC over SARFAESI was first observed in the case of “M/s Unigreen Global Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank”, it was held in this case that once the moratorium is imposed under the IBC, then proceedings under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act shall not proceed. Furthermore, in another case of “Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Mahesh Bansal”, it was held that the pending proceedings under SARFAESI Act shall not hinder the proceedings triggered by the creditor under the IBC. Therefore, even when proceedings under SARFAESI Act have already been initiated, fresh proceedings under IBC can still be accepted because of non-obstante clause. This point concludes that the IBC prevail over SARFAESI. The scope of non-obstante clause has also thrown light upon section 238 that it will render all the provisions of IBC to prevail over any other laws dealing with the same subject matter.
In one of the landmark case “Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Charu Sandeep Desai”, the NCLT also analysed judgement of supreme court in matter of Transcore v. Union of India and observed that the rights in the asset can be claimed by the financial institution ‘as if’ it is the owner of the asset and the words ‘as if’ denote deemed ownership and not actual ownership of the property. They further held that the IRP was bound by the law to take custody of the property in question u/s 18 of IBC. Furthermore, the decision was appealed to the NCLAT, and it added to the NCLT order that the judgment of Transcore was way before the IBC came into existence and cannot be relied upon it because of the IBC’s non-obstante clause which gives it an overriding effect over the SARFAESI act.
In the recent case of Indian Overseas Bank. The bank took symbolic possession of two secured assets mortgaged exclusively with it in exercise of powers conferred u/s 13(4) of the SAFAESI Act read with rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. An E-auction notice came to be issued by the bank to recover the public money availed by the debtor. At this stage, the debtor filed a petition u/s 10 of IBC before NCLT and NCLT on 3rd January 2019 admitted the petition and a moratorium was also notified. But even thereafter, the bank continued the auction proceedings and accepted the balance 75% of the bid amount and completed the sale. NCLT, allowing the application filed by debtor, passed an order setting aside the sale. NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by the bank and therefore it approached the Apex court. Referring to section 14 & 238 of the IBC, the court observed that “After the CIRP is initiated, there is moratorium for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by debtor including any action under SARFAESI Act”. Further, by dismissing the appeal, the bench observed that “in view of the provisions of section 14 (1) (c) of the IBC, which have overriding effect over any other law, any foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by debtor, any action under SARFAESI Act is prohibited. We are of the view that the appellant bank could not have continued the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act once the CIRP was initiated, and the moratorium was ordered.”
Upon the introduction of IBC in 2016, it was observed that SARFAESI approach was much preferred. Even after amendments the act was having lots of issues and so how it failed to prove its effectiveness, considering the numbers. The date of 2018-19 shows a recovery rate of 14.5% whereas recovery rate under IBC was 42.5%. Further, as on 30th June 2017, the record of pending cases across DRT was 1,09,598 cases with recovery dues of Rs. 6,35,000 crores. Under IBC, as on September 2019, 2542, cases were admitted and as of November 2019, 160 cases were resolved. Mainly, because of the fact that IBC provides a speedy remedy and is also efficient for reviving business and safeguarding the interest of all the stakeholders. This comparison shows that why IBC is now-a-days preferred over SARFAESI Act.
In the case, A.T. Maideen v. The Authorised Officer cum Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, DRAT Chennai Bench stated that, “Secured Creditor will get rights to enforce section 13(4) only after completion of 60 days from the date of notice issued u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002”.
This statement indeed makes the resolution process under SARFAESI Act is time consuming.
In another case, Digambar Bhondwe v. J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the NCLAT held that “It is clear from the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred by this tribunal in the matter of Sh G Eshwara Rao, that when the time starts running on the filing under IBC, subsequent filing of the application to DRT and/or judgement passed by DRT does not make a difference, for the purpose of provision of IBC.”
Key differences between IBC and SARFAESI Act
- SARFAESI Act safeguards the financial creditors, which ae generally the banks and other FIs, by empowering them to enforce their security interests and the same can be done without intervention of court. On the other hand, IBC safeguards the rights of all types of creditors, which have been classified as financial and operational creditors under the
- During the Insolvency Resolution Process, the code takes precedence over SARFAESI as explicitly has been mentioned under the law.
- The position with respect to individuals and unincorporated entities is different and the IBC has differentiated liquidation and insolvency process between the corporate debtor’s liquidation process for individual and firms/companies, while the same has not been done by SARFAESI
- In cases where there is no existence of revenue stream, no potential for the revival of the business and no significant assets with the guarantors also, an action under the SARFAESI Act would result in recovery through the sale of assets whereas, a resolution plan under IBC is generally not under such cases. Furthermore, expenses under SARFAESI Act on recovery is lesser than the cost of the resolution process under IBC.
-
In large size cases where there is a high debt burden, SARFAESI is not much effective and taking physical possession of the assets might tear the business apart also there is very low scope of On the other hand, resolution plans under IBC are focused towards securing the interest of all stakeholders and directed towards revival of business, hence, in such cases IBC is highly effective.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
To conclude, stressed assets are one of the major issues of negative economy. Government and RBI are continuously bringing amendments to the law to resolve this. Back in time, till around 5 years ago SARFAESI and ARC approach did not prove itself as an impactful weapon for recovery. Thereafter, IBC came into existence from 2016, creditors started turning towards IBC approach which proved effective in comparison to SARFAESI. Since, it also allows revival of business this has become a primary choice for resolution of asset. On the other hand, IBC having over-riding effect over SARFAESI, makes IBC a better option for debtors to have unaffected approach by any other law. Though as, we have seen above that government is now coming strong to buy NPA through ARC, will have positive impact towards SARFAESI approach. However, time period that ARC would require is 5 years and there may be extension to initial time period, whenever country’s economy affects adversely (steeply going downwards). Therefore, creditors shall be made aware of this issue and wisely choose its option for resolution.
The right use and implementation of right law will always help the user to resolve the issue.
Footnotes:-
Regulatory Framework for SCs/RCs, [2014], RBI/2014-2015/164, DNBS (PD) CC. No. 41/SCRC/26.03.001/2014-2015
Sudarshan Sen, ‘To Review the Working of Asset Reconstruction Company’, (2021, Ch. C), Reserve Bank of India, para C-6
Reserve Bank of India, ‘The Securitization Companies and Reconstruction Companies’ (white paper, No.DNBS.2/CGM(CSM), 2003) point 7
Navin Kumar Jaggi, Non-Performing Asset: A Financial Indiscipline (2021) https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5709-non-performing-asset-a-financial-indiscipline.html accessed 24th June, 2022
Pallab Sikdar, ‘Role of Non-Performing Assets in the Risk Framework of Commercial Banks-A Study of Select Indian Commercial Banks’ (2013) https://apps.aima.in/ejournal_new/articlesPDF/PallabSikdar.pdf accessed 24th June, 2022
Pallab Sikdar, ‘Role of Non-Performing Assets in the Risk Framework of Commercial Banks-A Study of Select Indian Commercial Banks’ (2013) https://apps.aima.in/ejournal_new/articlesPDF/PallabSikdar.pdf accessed 24th June, 2022
SARFAESI Act 2002, section 13(4)
Sudharshan Sen, ‘To Review the Working of Asset Reconstruction Company’, (2021, Ch. D), Reserve Bank of India, para-D-2.2
Sunny Verma, ‘Bad Bank is ready, how will it resolve stressed assets’, (The Indian Express, 31st January 2022) < https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-bad-bank-stressed-assets-7747007/> accessed 25th June, 2022[
Urjit R. Patel, ‘Resolution of Stressed Assets: Towards Endgame’, (2017), 1 [https://www.bis.org/review/r170830a.pdf]
Navin Kumar Jaggi, Non-Performing Asset: A Financial Indiscipline (2021) [https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5709-non-performing-asset-a-financial-indiscipline.html] accessed 25th June, 2022
C.P. Chandrashekar, ‘A Non-Performing Code for Bad Debts’, (The Business Line. 29 June 2021) <https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/c-p-chandrasekhar/a-non-performing-code-for-bad- debt/article35023396.ece> accessed 25th June 2022
M. Rajeshwar Rao, ‘Resolution of Stressed Assets and IBC’, (2022) < https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Bulletin/PDFs/01SP_170520223CA6559F4EF1433796156F3ECA4A91C4.PDF > accessed 27th June 2022
Krishna Veera Vanamali, ‘Where does IBC stand after 5 years after RBI’s dirty dozen announcement’, (2022) < https://www.business-standard.com/podcast/economy-policy/where-does-ibc-stand-five-years-after-rbi-s- dirty-dozen-announcement-122061400060_1.html> accessed 27th June, 2022
Anjali Jain, ‘Asset Reconstruction Companies as resolution applicants under IBC: A unique category’ (IBC Laws, 20th December 2020) < https://ibclaw.in/asset-reconstruction-companies-as-resolution-applicants-under-ibc-a-unique-category-ms-anjali-jain-ms-swati-sood/> accessed 25th March 2022
Aakash Batra, ‘IBC v. SARFAESI Act – Interplay and Overlapping’, (Tax Guru, 18th December 2020) <https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/ibc-v-sarfaesi-act-interplay-overlapping.html#_ftnref11> accessed 25th June, 2022
Aakash Batra, ‘IBC v. SARFAESI Act – Interplay and Overlapping’, (Tax Guru, 18th December 2020) <https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/ibc-v-sarfaesi-act-interplay-overlapping.html#_ftnref11> accessed 25th June, 2022
Ashok KM, (Live Law.in, 18th May 2022) <https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-sarfaesi-corporate-debtor-cirp-ibc-moratorium-indian-overseas-bank-vs-rcm-infrastructure-ltd-2022-livelaw-sc-496-199491> accessed 26th June, 2022
Aakash Batra, ‘IBC v. SARFAESI Act – Interplay and Overlapping’, (Tax Guru, 18th December 2020) <https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/ibc-v-sarfaesi-act-interplay-overlapping.html#_ftnref11> accessed 25th June, 2022
A.T. Maideen v. The Authorised Officer cum Chief Manager, Union Bank of India (2022) RA (SA) 20/2021, SA No. 101/2018, (2022), ibclaw.in 15 DRAT [https://cdn.ibclaw.online/DRB/RDBSARFAESI/DRAT/2022/A.T.%2BMaideen%2BVs.%2BThe%2BAuthorised%2BOfficer%2Bcum%2BChief%2BManager%2C%2BUnion%2BBank%2Bof%2BIndia%2B-%2BDRAT%2BChennai%2BBench.pdf]
Aakash Batra, ‘IBC v. SARFAESI Act – Interplay and Overlapping’, (Tax Guru, 18th December 2020) <https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/ibc-v-sarfaesi-act-interplay-overlapping.html#_ftnref11> accessed 25th June, 2022
Author Bio
