Section 65 penalties only apply to persons who fraudulently initiate insolvency proceedings, not promoters who cannot initiate CIRP

NCLAT Principal Bench held that Section 65 of IBC, being a penal provision, requires strict interpretation and penalties can only be imposed on persons who fraudulently initiate insolvency resolution process under Sections 7, 9, or 10. The tribunal ruled that promoters cannot be penalized under Section 65 as they are not entitled to initiate CIRP proceedings. While the adjudicating authority found CIRP was initiated fraudulently by financial creditors, it was directed to proceed with imposing appropriate penalties only on the financial creditors who initiated the process, not on promoters or other parties. Appeal disposed of accordingly.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was fraudulent and with malicious intent.
• Whether penalties under Section 65 of the IBC should be imposed on the financial creditors and the promoters of the corporate debtor for the alleged fraudulent initiation of CIRP.
• The applicability of Rule 59 of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Rules, 2016 for issuing show cause notices in the context of penalties under Section 65 of the IBC.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Fraudulent Initiation of CIRP:

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 7 of the IBC allows financial creditors to initiate CIRP against a corporate debtor in case of default. Section 65 of the IBC penalizes fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the insolvency proceedings were initiated fraudulently and with malicious intent, not for the purpose of resolving the insolvency of the corporate debtor.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted collusion between the financial creditors and the corporate debtor's promoters, which was intended to defeat the decade-long efforts in an oppression and mismanagement petition.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied Section 65 to determine that the initiation was fraudulent, warranting the recall of the earlier order admitting the CIRP.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued for penalties on both financial creditors and promoters, while the promoters contended that penalties should not apply to them as they did not initiate the proceedings.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings were initiated fraudulently and directed the return of control to the corporate debtor's management, while issuing a show cause notice to the financial creditors.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 65 of IBC:

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 65 provides for penalties on persons who fraudulently or maliciously initiate insolvency proceedings. The section requires strict interpretation as a penal statute.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted Section 65 to apply penalties only to those who initiate proceedings, not to those who may collude or conspire.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to penalize promoters, as the statute does not explicitly include collusion within the penalty framework.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that penalties could only be applied to the financial creditors who initiated the proceedings.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants' argument for penalizing promoters was rejected due to the lack of statutory basis for such penalties under Section 65.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal decided not to impose penalties on promoters and issued show cause notices to the financial creditors.

Applicability of Rule 59 of the NCLT Rules, 2016:

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 59 outlines procedures for imposing penalties under the Companies Act, 2013, not the IBC.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that Rule 59 is not applicable to penalties under the IBC but allowed the issuance of show cause notices as a procedural step.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the issuance of show cause notices was not precluded by any statutory provisions.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal decided that the issuance of notices was a reasonable procedural step, although not strictly required by the IBC.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants challenged the use of Rule 59, but the Tribunal maintained that the notices were appropriate.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the issuance of show cause notices and left the decision on penalties to the Adjudicating Authority.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The penal provision must be strictly construed in the first place. Secondly, there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute takes that also within its fold."
• Core principles established: Section 65 of the IBC is a penal provision requiring strict interpretation, applying penalties only to those who initiate proceedings fraudulently.
• Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal found the initiation of CIRP fraudulent, recalled the order admitting CIRP, issued show cause notices to financial creditors, and determined that penalties under Section 65 could not be imposed on promoters.

---