Appeal allows treating unenforced 5% margin as corporate debtor asset; s30(4) and s52 IBC govern pro-rata distribution

NCLAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order that excluded a 5% margin from the corporate debtor's assets and awarded it to the respondent. The Tribunal held the margin, being an unenforced equitable mortgage and backed by no live guarantees at CIRP commencement, remained the debtor's asset; the Supriyo Kumar ratio did not apply. The CoC's commercial decision to distribute proceeds pro-rata on admitted claims under s30(4) IBC could not be overridden, and enforcement of security interest is permissible only in liquidation under s52 IBC. Distribution to secured creditors to follow CoC's pro-rata scheme.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an Adjudicating Authority could exclude from the corporate debtor's asset pool an amount equivalent to a pre-CIRP "margin" claimed by a financial creditor in respect of FLC/LC/BG when that margin is asserted to be secured by an equitable mortgage over immovable property.

2. Whether a security interest in the form of an unenforced equitable mortgage over immovable property can be treated as "margin money" impressed with the character of a trust and thus removed from the CIRP asset pool.

3. Whether enforcement or appropriation of a margin that subsists as an equitable mortgage is permissible during CIRP or is prohibited by the moratorium and the statutory distribution regime (including the CoC's decision under Section 30(4)).

4. Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in intervening with the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom (approval of distribution on admitted claim ratio) by directing carve-out of the claimed margin.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Power of the Adjudicating Authority to exclude a claimed margin from the asset pool

Legal framework: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provisions on CIRP, moratorium (Section 14), definition of "security interest" (Section 3(31)), role and commercial wisdom of CoC in distribution (Section 30(4)), and liquidation distribution (Section 52).

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal accepted prior authority construing margin money (in the form of bank deposits/TDRs) as a trust substratum under facts where guarantees/BGs were live; such holdings allow margin to be treated as not forming part of the corporate debtor's assets. That precedent was followed in appropriate factual contexts and distinguished where facts differ.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the sanction letter, Form-C, CoC minutes and correspondence, and found the subject property recorded as "collateral security" by way of equitable mortgage. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority's exclusion of 5% as margin effectively permitted appropriation/enforcement of what was an unenforced equitable mortgage during CIRP. Because enforcement is prevented by moratorium and the mortgage had not been enforced pre-CIRP, the equitable mortgage remained an asset of the corporate debtor and could not be carved out.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An Adjudicating Authority cannot exclude from the CIRP asset pool and assign to a creditor a claimed margin that is the subject of an unenforced equitable mortgage where the underlying guarantees/LCs/BGs are not live and enforcement is precluded by moratorium; such exclusion improperly permits enforcement during CIRP. Obiter - Observations on how margin in liquid form differs operationally from margin comprised of fixed immovable property.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority exceeded jurisdiction by directing exclusion of 5% margin held as an unenforced equitable mortgage from the asset pool; the carve-out could not be sustained.

Issue 2 - Characterisation of an equitable mortgage as "margin money"/trust

Legal framework: Principles on trust characterization of margin money; difference between deposits held as margin (e.g., TDR/FDR) and security interests (mortgage/charge) under IBC; seminal elements for trust formation as cited from higher court precedent.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal acknowledged and accepted prior findings that margin in deposit form (TDR/FDR) tied to live BGs/LCs may be treated as trust/property of the beneficiary and excluded from the corporate debtor's assets. That precedent was treated as binding on like facts but was distinguished where margin is in form of unenforced mortgage.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasised factual distinction: a deposit (TDR) is held by the bank and can be shown as segregated margin/trust; an equitable mortgage is a security interest that leaves the immovable property with the debtor until enforcement. Because the BG/LC obligations had devolved or were not live at CIRP and the equitable mortgage was not enforced pre-CIRP, the subject property never acquired the operational character of segregated margin-trust. The elements required for a trust were not satisfactorily established such that the property ceased to be the corporate debtor's asset during CIRP.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An equitable mortgage that is unenforced does not ipso facto become margin money impressed with trust character; unlike deposits, an equitable mortgage remains the asset of the corporate debtor until enforcement and cannot be excluded from the CIRP asset pool on trust grounds. Obiter - Detailed commentary on how documentation and enforcement alter the character of margin.

Conclusion: The equitable mortgage in question could not be treated as margin money forming a trust to the creditor in the CIRP context; it remained an asset of the corporate debtor absent enforcement and live obligation requiring preservation as margin.

Issue 3 - Effect of moratorium and timing of enforcement (live guarantees) on appropriation of margin/security

Legal framework: Moratorium under Section 14(1)(c) prohibiting enforcement of security during CIRP; Section 52 (permissible in liquidation); definition of security interest; consequences of pre-CIRP invocation of BG/LCs.

Precedent treatment: Prior authorities permit appropriation of margin where margin deposits were appropriated pre-CIRP or where guarantees were live; enforcement during liquidation under Section 52 is lawful. Tribunal distinguished cases where margin deposits had been appropriated or guarantees were live from the present facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that BGs had been invoked and LCs devolved long before CIRP and no live guarantees existed during CIRP; Respondent's communication admitted no live BGs. Further, the equitable mortgage had not been enforced pre-CIRP and SARFAESI/other enforcement remained incomplete and subject to moratorium. Hence the creditor's attempt to treat the property as appropriable margin constituted indirect enforcement barred by Section 14 and impermissible except in liquidation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Enforcement or appropriation of security interest (including appropriation of immovable property by way of equitable mortgage) is prohibited during CIRP by moratorium unless enforcement occurred pre-CIRP; direct enforcement is a liquidation remedy and cannot be achieved via post-CIRP characterization of the asset as margin. Obiter - Remarks on consequences where enforcement/appropriation occurred pre-CIRP.

Conclusion: Appropriation of the alleged 5% margin via recognition of an unenforced equitable mortgage during CIRP violated moratorium and was impermissible; appropriate remedy, if any, was available only in liquidation or by prior enforcement.

Issue 4 - Interference with Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom and distribution methodology

Legal framework: CoC's power to decide distribution mechanism under Section 30(4), finality of commercial wisdom on resolution plan distribution, and limited jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority to interfere absent statutory breach.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal reiterated principles that the CoC's commercially informed decision is binding where taken with requisite majority and not violative of statutory provisions; Adjudicating Authority's interference is limited.

Interpretation and reasoning: The CoC had validly resolved by requisite majority to distribute proceeds pro rata on admitted claim ratio. The creditor asserting exclusive margin sought, belatedly, to recharacterise collateral as margin after the CoC decision and after CoC members and prospective resolution applicants had factored the asset pool. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority, in allowing a carve-out, effectively substituted its view for the CoC's commercial decision and permitted an outcome amounting to enforcement during CIRP, both impermissible and beyond its limited supervisory role.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the CoC, exercising commercial wisdom with requisite majority, decides distribution on admitted claim ratio, the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere to reallocate assets (except on valid legal grounds) so as to effect enforcement of security during CIRP; interference that results in de facto enforcement is impermissible. Obiter - Observations on impact on resolution applicants and structured bids.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority's direction to carve out and assign the 5% margin was an undue interference with the CoC's commercial wisdom and could not be sustained.

FINAL DISPOSITION (as derived from reasons above)

On the combined findings the Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order excluding the value of the 5% alleged margin from the corporate debtor's assets and directed that distribution to secured creditors shall follow the CoC-approved pro-rata (admitted claim) methodology. The Tribunal's conclusions rest on (a) the unenforced equitable mortgage remaining an asset of the corporate debtor, (b) absence of live guarantees/obligations rendering margin-trust inapplicable, (c) moratorium barring enforcement during CIRP, and (d) limited scope for the Adjudicating Authority to override the CoC's commercial decision.

---