Section 7 insolvency application rejected for COVID-era default without justifiable cause for amendment

The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging rejection of a Section 7 application under IBC. The appellant's application was rejected as barred by Section 10A, which prohibits insolvency proceedings for defaults during the COVID protection period. The appellant attempted to amend the default date from 05.09.2020 (within Section 10A period) to 01.04.2021 without justifiable cause. The tribunal held that while amendments to Section 7 applications are permissible per SC precedent, changing the default date without proper justification would undermine Section 10A's protective purpose. The adjudicating authority correctly rejected both the amendment application and the Section 7 application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of amendment application in Section 7 application.
2. Rejection of Section 7 application as barred by Section 10A of the IBC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Amendment Application in Section 7 Application:

The appellants filed an appeal challenging the order dated 05.01.2024 by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-VI) which rejected their amendment application in Section 7. The appellants sought to amend the date of default from 05.09.2020 to 01.04.2021. The Adjudicating Authority viewed this as an attempt to change the date of default, which was initially stated as 05.09.2020 in Part IV of the Section 7 application. The appellants argued that they had the right to amend the application, citing continuous cause of action under Clause 8 of the Agreement for Sale. However, the Adjudicating Authority found that the amendment would introduce a new plea, which is inconsistent with the original case and intended to overcome the statutory bar under Section 10A of the IBC.

2. Rejection of Section 7 Application as Barred by Section 10A of the IBC:

The Adjudicating Authority also rejected the Section 7 application as it was barred by Section 10A of the IBC. The appellants mentioned the date of default as 05.09.2020, which fell within the period prohibited by Section 10A. The appellants could not provide a satisfactory explanation to justify the amendment of the date of default. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized that allowing such an amendment would negate the legislative bar against filing applications for defaults during the COVID-19 pandemic period. The Authority noted that the appellants' claim of informal settlement discussions did not justify changing the date of default. The Authority concluded that the default occurred on 05.09.2020, and the appellants' attempt to change this date was not supported by any valid justification.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the appellants failed to provide a valid reason for changing the date of default. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in "C Shivkumar Reddy v. Dena Bank," which allows amendments in Section 7 applications depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, in this case, the Tribunal found no justifiable cause for the amendment. The Tribunal also noted that Section 10A was introduced to provide relief to corporate debtors during the COVID-19 period, and allowing the amendment would undermine this legislative intent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the rejection of the Section 7 application was upheld.

---