NCLT has jurisdiction to entertain company petition under Section 10-A IBC when default continues beyond moratorium period

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging NCLT's jurisdiction to entertain a company petition under Section 10-A of IBC, 2016. The petitioner argued that the default commenced during the moratorium period (on or after 25.03.2020 for six months), prohibiting CIRP initiation. The HC held that while Section 10-A temporarily suspends CIRP initiation for defaults during the moratorium period, it cannot be extended to cases where default continues beyond the moratorium period. Since the default in this case continued after the moratorium period ended, NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the petition filed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is maintainable in light of Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016). Specifically, the question is whether the NCLT has jurisdiction to entertain the Company Petition given the default period in question.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

Section 10-A of the IBC, 2016, temporarily suspends the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for defaults arising on or after March 25, 2020, for a period of six months, extendable up to one year. The proviso to Section 10-A specifies that no application shall ever be filed for initiation of CIRP for defaults occurring during this specified period.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court interpreted Section 10-A as a temporary moratorium on the initiation of CIRP for defaults occurring within the specified period. However, the Court noted that if the default continued beyond the moratorium period, the prohibition on filing applications does not apply. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to provide relief during the moratorium period but not to indefinitely bar actions for defaults that persist beyond this period.

Key Evidence and Findings

The Court acknowledged that the Corporate Debtor had defaulted on payments and that the default began during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it was undisputed that the default continued beyond the moratorium period. The Court also noted the admission of default by the petitioners in various One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposals.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applied Section 10-A to the facts, concluding that while the initial default occurred during the moratorium period, the continued default beyond this period allowed for the initiation of CIRP. The Court found that the NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the default persisted after the moratorium period.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioners argued that the application was not maintainable due to the default occurring during the COVID-19 period, relying on Section 10-A and the Supreme Court judgment in Ramesh Kymal v. SiemensGamesa Renewable Power Private Limited. The Court, however, distinguished this case by noting that the default continued beyond the moratorium period, thus permitting the initiation of CIRP.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that the NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the default continued beyond the moratorium period specified in Section 10-A. The Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, emphasizing the availability of an effective alternative remedy.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning

"The intention of the legislature is to give relief by suspending initiation of CIRP. This Court, from the plain reading of Section 10-A is unable to agree with the learned Senior Counsel that even in a case where the default continued after the period of moratorium, no application can be filed."

Core Principles Established

The Court established that Section 10-A provides temporary relief for defaults occurring during a specified period due to extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this relief does not extend indefinitely to defaults that persist beyond the moratorium period.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The Court determined that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the continued default beyond the moratorium period. The Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the availability of an effective alternative remedy.

---