TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
- Whether an application under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) prior to constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), can be opposed by another financial creditor who has filed its claim within the prescribed timelineRs.
- Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the IRP's application under Section 12A for withdrawal of the CIRP and allowing the intervention application of the financial creditor opposing such withdrawalRs.
- The extent of the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction and discretion in considering objections to withdrawal applications filed under Section 12A before constitution of the CoC.
- The applicability and interpretation of Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) regarding procedure for withdrawal applications before constitution of the CoC.
- The effect of settled claims with one financial creditor on the rights and claims of other creditors in the CIRP process and the principle of collective resolution under the IBC.
- The legal principles governing the nature of CIRP proceedings as "in rem" proceedings and the consequent rights of stakeholders after admission of the insolvency petition.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Jurisdiction of other financial creditors to oppose Section 12A withdrawal application filed before constitution of CoC
The legal framework includes Section 12A of the IBC, inserted by Act 26/2018, allowing withdrawal of insolvency applications post admission, subject to approval of 90% voting share of the CoC once constituted. Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations provides the procedure for withdrawal applications before CoC constitution, requiring submission of the application to the IRP and thereafter to the Adjudicating Authority for approval after considering relevant factors.
The Court examined precedents, notably the Supreme Court's judgment in Swiss Ribbons Ltd. & Anr., which emphasized that once CIRP is admitted, proceedings become collective ("in rem"), involving all creditors, and withdrawal requires consultation with the CoC or, if not constituted, adjudication by the NCLT after hearing all concerned parties. The Court also relied heavily on the Supreme Court's recent rulings in Abhishek Singh and GLAS Trust Company LLC, which clarified that withdrawal applications filed before CoC constitution are not to be treated as a mere formality or technicality. Instead, the Adjudicating Authority must conduct an adjudicatory exercise, hearing all stakeholders and considering all relevant facts.
The Court noted that HDFC Bank, a financial creditor, filed its claim within the timeline prescribed in the IRP's publication and thus had locus standi to oppose the withdrawal application filed by the IRP based on settlement with another creditor (SIDBI). The Court rejected the appellant's submission that other creditors have no jurisdiction to object before constitution of the CoC, holding that the collective nature of CIRP proceedings post admission entails that all creditors become stakeholders with rights to be heard.
The Court observed that the Adjudicating Authority rightly exercised its jurisdiction by allowing the intervention application of HDFC Bank and rejecting the IRP's withdrawal application, considering the interests of all creditors and the collective resolution framework mandated by the IBC.
Issue 2: Interpretation and application of Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations
Regulation 30A prescribes the procedure for withdrawal applications under Section 12A, including submission to the IRP in Form FA, bank guarantee for estimated costs, consideration by the CoC if constituted, and approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The Court highlighted that Regulation 30A was introduced to fill the lacuna regarding withdrawal post admission but prior to CoC constitution.
The Court emphasized that Regulation 30A does not reduce the Adjudicating Authority's role to a mere "post office" function. Instead, the Adjudicating Authority must hear all parties and consider all relevant factors, including claims of other creditors. The Court referred to Paragraph 66(b) of the GLAS Trust Company judgment, which held that the Adjudicating Authority must conduct an adjudicatory exercise and not merely approve withdrawal mechanically.
The Court found that the Adjudicating Authority properly applied Regulation 30A by considering the competing claims and objections, the quantum of claims admitted, and the settlement amount, before rejecting the withdrawal application.
Issue 3: Effect of settlement with one creditor on other creditors' rights and the collective nature of CIRP
The Court reiterated the principle that CIRP proceedings are collective in nature, involving all creditors once admitted, as established in Swiss Ribbons and GLAS Trust Company. A settlement with one creditor alone does not extinguish or affect the claims of other creditors. Preferential payment to one creditor to the exclusion of others is inconsistent with the IBC's scheme.
The Court noted that the total admitted claims amounted to Rs. 4,58,82,649/-, including Rs. 4,30,74,985/- from HDFC Bank, whereas the settlement amount with SIDBI was Rs. 1,58,70,199/-. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that a unilateral settlement with SIDBI could not override the legitimate interests of other creditors, particularly HDFC Bank, whose claims were filed within the stipulated period.
The Court underscored that disregarding other creditors' interests would violate the collective resolution framework and the rights of stakeholders in the insolvency process.
Issue 4: Nature of CIRP proceedings as "in rem" and implications for withdrawal applications
The Court analyzed the transformation of insolvency proceedings from "in personam" (between applicant creditor and corporate debtor) to "in rem" (involving all creditors) upon admission under Sections 7 to 9 of the IBC, as explained in GLAS Trust Company and Swiss Ribbons.
This change in character entails that the management of the corporate debtor vests in the IRP/RP, and all creditors become necessary stakeholders. Thus, withdrawal applications affect the collective interests of all creditors and cannot be decided unilaterally or without hearing all concerned parties.
The Court emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority must consider the collective nature of proceedings and the interests of all creditors before allowing withdrawal, even if the application is filed before constitution of the CoC.
Issue 5: Discretion and factors for Adjudicating Authority in deciding Section 12A withdrawal applications
The Court acknowledged that the mere fact of an objection by a stakeholder does not automatically justify rejection of a withdrawal application. The Adjudicating Authority must consider relevant factors, including nature and quantum of claims, timing of settlement, and overall interests of creditors.
No rigid or "straight jacket" formula applies; each application must be decided on its facts. The Court found that the Adjudicating Authority properly balanced these factors in the present case, considering the substantial claims of HDFC Bank and the limited settlement amount with SIDBI, and accordingly rejected the IRP's withdrawal application.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
"Once the petition is admitted, the proceedings are no longer the preserve of the applicant creditor and the debtor. They now become in rem and all creditors of the corporate debtor become stakeholders in the process."
"Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations does not reduce the Adjudicating Authority's role to a mere post office that merely puts a stamp on the withdrawal application submitted by the parties through the IRP. The NCLT must decide on the application after hearing all the parties concerned and considering all relevant factors on the facts of each case."
"A unilateral settlement between one financial creditor and the corporate debtor cannot override the legitimate interests of other creditors who have filed their claims within the prescribed timelines. Such an approach would contradict the collective resolution framework mandated by the Code and undermine the interests of other stakeholders in the insolvency process."
"The Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction and discretion to consider objections by other creditors to a Section 12A withdrawal application filed before constitution of the CoC and must undertake an adjudicatory exercise, hearing all parties and considering all relevant factors."
"No straight jacket formula can be laid down for adjudication of Section 12A applications and objections thereto; facts of each case must be considered to decide whether the application should be allowed or rejected."
The Adjudicating Authority was justified in allowing the intervention application of HDFC Bank and rejecting the IRP's application for withdrawal under Section 12A.
The appeals challenging the Adjudicating Authority's orders on I.A. No. 200/2022 and I.A. No. 182/2022 were correctly decided and no interference was warranted.
TaxTMI 
