High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on insolvency application under IBC

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the maintainability of the insolvency application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, ruling that objections could not be entertained initially. It affirmed the Tribunal's jurisdiction to proceed with the application despite the loan assignment issue. The Court emphasized that a hearing before appointing a resolution professional was not required under the IBC but directed the professional to submit a report promptly. The Court stressed compliance with natural justice principles, requiring the resolution professional to share the report with parties and ensuring a timely decision by the Tribunal after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the insolvency application under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to proceed with the insolvency application.
3. The necessity of hearing the petitioner before appointing a resolution professional and the impact on the petitioner's rights.
4. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Insolvency Application:
The petitioner opposed the insolvency application on the grounds that the entire loan had been assigned to J.M. Finance, rendering the application under section 95 of IBC not maintainable. The Tribunal, however, held that objections to the maintainability of the application could not be entertained at the initial stage. According to the Tribunal, as per sections 95 to 100 of IBC, objections could only be considered after the resolution professional submits a report.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the insolvency application because the loan had been assigned to another entity. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that jurisdictional objections could not be addressed until the resolution professional's report was received. The High Court concurred, noting that the Tribunal's jurisdiction to proceed with the application was not contingent upon resolving the assignment issue at the preliminary stage.

3. Necessity of Hearing the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that not being heard before the appointment of a resolution professional prejudiced their rights and standing in the market. They argued that interim moratoriums commencing upon application filing caused serious prejudice. The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns but emphasized that the IBC's scheme, particularly sections 95 to 100, did not necessitate a hearing before appointing a resolution professional. The Court noted that the legislative intent was for the interim moratorium to be of limited duration and that the resolution professional's report should be expedited.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner claimed that the Tribunal's decision violated the principles of natural justice by not affording them a hearing. The High Court observed that while the IBC provided for interim moratoriums and the appointment of resolution professionals without initial hearings, it also mandated that the resolution professional's report be shared with the debtor and creditor, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The Court further directed that the resolution professional should submit the report within six weeks, and the Tribunal should decide the application within 14 days thereafter, after hearing the parties.

Conclusion:
The High Court did not find grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders but emphasized the need for the resolution professional to submit the report within a definite timeframe. The Court directed the resolution professional to submit the report within six weeks and the Tribunal to decide the application within 14 days thereafter, ensuring that the parties are heard. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

---