An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 244

POWERS OF ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY AND

COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS UNDER IBC 2016: A
CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Written by Rishabh Sethi* & Deepika Gupta**

* Advocate, Bombay High Court, Mumbai, India

** Advocate, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, India

ABSTRACT
The Banking sector in India has endured many changes and brought regulatory reforms since
the post-liberalization. The Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is one of the major
economic reforms made under the current government. It is one of the crucial reforms as it
creates a framework by constructing single law dealing with insolvency in India. The
provisions relating to insolvency and bankruptcy for companies was found in Sick Industrial
Companies (Special Provisions) Act1985, the Recovery of Debt due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993, the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Companies Act, 2013. It was noticed that
the laws and regulations set out in these legislations overlapped each other and thus, created
confusion regarding the insolvency regimes in India. The framework that existed failed in
securing a resolution for the corporate debtor. This led to the failure of business, finance and
management by the promoters of the company. Therefore, the then provisions for insolvency
and bankruptcy were inadequate, ineffective and unaligned with the market realities. The main
objective of the Code is to bring about a mechanism that would consolidate and amend the
laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership
firms and individuals in a time-bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such
persons and to speed up the insolvency process. The Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India
(IBBI) was formed under the code to take due steps to make the code effective for the Corporate
Debtor (CD) under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and other creditors by

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 245

making necessary amendments in the code over the years. The paper will mainly focus on the
powers conferred on the Committee of Creditors and the high dependence on the Resolution
Professional and COC during CIRP. COC must set aside their personal interest and agree on a
resolution plan that would be more beneficial to the CD. In the insolvency resolution process,
the powers conferred on the Adjudicating Authority is merely restricted to the extent of
ensuring that due process has been followed by the resolution professional. This gives more
discretionary powers to the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors and further
fails to provide adequate safeguards to the Promoters of the Company. It is also pertinent to
note that though the powers of the Adjudicating Authority have been restricted, there has been
excessive judicial activism by the Adjudicating Authority in deciding cases and creating a
dilemma with respect to its powers. Therefore, this paper will discuss such cases and bring
clarity in the powers conferred upon the Adjudicating Authority. The conclusion of the research
paper will include recommendations after analysing the present provisions and precedents set
by the Adjudicating Authority.

Keywords: Insolvency, Banking, Adjudicating Authority, Promoters, Resolution Professional.

INTRODUCTION
In India, before Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 there were several statutory
instruments governing insolvency and bankruptcy such as the Sick Industrial Companies
(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks, and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993, the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) and the Companies Act, 2013 dealing
with insolvency and bankruptcy of companies, limited liability partnerships, partnerships firms,
individuals and other legal entities in India. As a result, the High Courts, the District Courts,
the Company Law Board, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), and
the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), conferred jurisdiction at various stages, giving rise to the
impending systemic delays in timely recovery of defaults in insolvency and debt recovery
cases. The liquidation of companies was handled by the high courts, individual cases were dealt
with under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.i

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 246

Hence, prevailing laws turned to be derisory and incompetent, which caused undue strain on
the Indian credit system and/or market realities. The inefficient dealing with insolvency and
liquidation led to immense confusion in the legal system, and there was an increased necessity
to modify the insolvency process. These multiple legal procedures and a court system led to
India witnessing a huge piling up of nonperforming assets, and creditors waiting for years to
recover their money.ii Therefore, to resolve this issue, the Indian policymakers introduced the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with the intention of the legislation to make a unified
Code concerning insolvency laws.

The act has streamlined the winding-up process in reverence of companies, which was earlier
scrapped due to an array of forums and statues established. The IBC is brought by the
legislation to propose a system for the insolvency resolution of debtors in a time-bound manner,
with an aim to protect the business from liquidation and to safeguard the value of the assets.
The code is set up to settle and financially restructure the companies by providing control to
creditors over decision making and empowering them to impose penalties in case the debtor
fails to pay. Any creditor including financial and operational creditor as well as a corporation
have a remedy to file for insolvency when the corporation defaults to make payment and take
control over the company. The Code divides the commercial aspects of insolvency and
bankruptcy proceedings from judicial aspects, it authorizes and enables the stakeholders and
Adjudicating Authority to decide matters within their respective domain expeditiously. iii The
Code has unified the law relating to the enforcement of the statutory rights of creditors and
modified the way a debtor company can be revived to sustain its debt without suppressing the
rights of creditors.iv

PROCEDURE UNDER THE CODE

Who can initiate CIRP under the IBC?

For the faster resolution of debt disputes and to consolidate the insolvency law, the code
introduced the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The Adjudicating Authority or
NCLT is an appropriate authority under which the application to initiate CIRP is presented. v

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 247

As per the code, the proceedings on behalf of the juristic entities such as companies, LLP’s or
corporate persons, can be initiated by a financial creditor, operational creditor, and the
corporate debtor himself.vi The primary condition to initiate CIRP is to claim debtvii and
minimum default or debt should not be less than Rs. 1 lakh. However, after the amendment in
2020 due to COVID, the debt amount has been increased to a minimum of Rs. 1 crore.viii

Application by Financial Creditor

Under section 7 of the Code, the financial creditorix may file a CIRP application against a
corporate debtor in case of unpaid financial debtx before the Adjudicating Authority. The
amount of default should not be less than rupees one lakh. However, the threshold limit of one
lakh rupees can be increased to one crore rupee.

i. The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of
admission of the application. A financial creditor, either by itself or jointly, shall make
an application for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process to the AA under
section 7 of the Code, as per form-1 with an application fee of Rs. 25000.xi Also, in the
case where the application is made jointly by financial creditors, they may nominate
one amongst them to act on their behalf.
ii. The Adjudicating Authority within fourteen days of the receipt of the application shall
ascertain the existence of a default from the records of an information utility or based
on other evidence furnished by the financial creditor.
iii. The Adjudicating Authority accepts the application if, default has occurred and the
application is complete, and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the
proposed resolution professional. In such a situation, it may, by order, admit such
application and further appoint a resolution professional.xii
iv. The adjudicating authority is also empowered to reject an application under section-7
if,

• there is no default or

• the application is incomplete under sub-section (2) or

• any disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional.

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 248

Application by Operational Creditor

Under Section 8 of the Code, an operational creditor in case of default, deliver a demand notice
of unpaid operational debtor copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved
in the default to the corporate debtor in the manner prescribed.xiii The corporate debtor shall
within ten days of the receipt of the demand notice bring to the notice of the operational
creditor:
(a) if there is any existence of a dispute or record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration
proceedings filed before the receipt of such notice.

(b) the payment of an unpaid operational debt.

Under Section 9 of the code, an operational creditorxiv can initiate a proceeding in case of an
unpaid operational debtxv against the corporate debtor.

i. An operational creditor before initiating CIRP on the account of default, the operational
creditor shall deliver a demand notice to the corporate debtor demanding the
outstanding payment. Demand notice must be served according to the Form-3 and a
copy of an invoice under Form- 4 to the corporate debtor.
ii. The corporate debtor should reply to the demand notice invoice demanding payment
under sub-section (1) of section 8 within ten days of the receipt of the Demand Notice.
After the expiry of a period of ten days, if the payment is not received then the
operational creditor can file an application for initiation of corporate insolvency
resolution process before the Adjudicating Authority. And if the corporate debtor
makes the payment, then he must attach the scope of the record of encash cheques and
record of the bank account with its reply.
iii. The Adjudicating Authority shall admit or reject the application within 14 days of the
filing of the application. The adjudicating authority may also provide 7 days to rectify
or amend the application and issue a notice to the applicant for the same.

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
 An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 249

Application by Corporate Debtor:

In terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the code, when a corporate debtor has committed a
default, a corporate applicant himself files an application by initiating the corporate insolvency
resolution process with the Adjudicating Authority.

For the commencement of CIRP:

i. The Corporate applicant shall make an application against the corporate debtor under
section 10 in form-6 along with a prescribed fee of Rs. 25000 before the Adjudicating
Authority.
ii. The application must be accompanied with all the information and documents which
includes:
• particulars of financial and operational debt, books of accounts, financial statements,
statement of affairs including a list of directors, shareholders, assets and liabilities, debts
owed to related parties, etc.
• the information relating to the resolution professional proposed to be appointed as an
interim resolution professional.
• the special resolution passed by shareholders of the corporate debtor and If Corporate
Debtor is a Partnership Firm, then resolution must be passed by at least three-fourth of
the total number of partners of Corporate Debtor.
iii. The Adjudicating Authority then within 14 days of the receipt of the application, shall
admit or reject the application. If the application is rejected, a time period of 7 days
must be given by the Adjudicating Authority to rectify or amend the application.
iv. The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of
admission of the application under sub-section (4) of this section.
(It is mandatory to obtain approval of shareholders of the Corporate Debtor before
applying u/s 10 of IBC).

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 250

Functionaries under the Code

The Code (IBC) is a fixed-term process for streamlining and recovery of a Debtor Company,
which contains the Committee of Creditors (CoC), Interim Resolution Professional
(IRP)/Resolution Professional (RP) and the Adjudicating Authority (AA).

Role of Committee of Creditors (CoC)

‘Committee of Creditors’ (CoC) is a committee involving financial creditors. The committee

is accountable for giving the approval to IRP and RP for carrying out the resolution process. It
is formed after collection of all the claims against the corporate debtor and it is the duty of the
Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to constitute the committee.xvixvii Primarily, all the
financial creditors are members of the CoC, provided that such a financial creditor is not a
related party. xviii On the other hand, the operational creditors are eliminated from being a part
of CoC and further not allowed to vote in favour or against the resolution plan.

According to the Regulation 16 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), CIRP
Regulations, a circumstance may arise that the corporate debtor has no financial debt or where
all the financial creditors are associated or related parties of the corporate debtor.xix In such a
situation, the regulation states that CoC shall include eighteen largest operational creditors by
value. Also, where the total number of operational creditors are less than eighteen, in that case,
all the operational creditors will form CoC.

Powers of COC
The Committee of creditors consists of only financial creditors and in an insolvency
proceeding, all the major decisions related to the company are taken by the committee formed
and even the decisions pertaining to day-to-day activities are done with the approval of the
committee. The committee also lay the power to ratify the managerial decision taken by the
RP. The committee has the authority to approve or reject the Resolution Plan under section 30
(4), to determine the liquidation of the corporate debtor and has a discretionary power to decide
upon the extension of CIRP.xx

A resolution plan is carried out by the committee, and it is accepted only if there is a majority
of at least 66% of the voting share of the financial creditors after considering its feasibility and

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 251

viability.xxi CoC also has the authority to decide as to how the resolution plan proceeds must
be distributed between different classes of creditors. Hence, all the decisions and resolutions
related to the corporate debtor are first approved by the COC.

Role of Adjudicating Authority

The IBC code comprises two adjudicating authorities National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in case of appeals.

Under the Companies Act 2013, the NCLT is an appropriate judiciary authority and was given
jurisdiction over the liquidation process and winding up of companies. NCLT plays a
significant role in the insolvency resolution process right from the initiation of the insolvency
process until the discharge of the corporate debtor against whom the charges were levied.
NCLT is the adjudicating authority in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for
corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors.xxii If any of the
aggrieved party is not satisfied with the decision and files the case against NCLT, the matter is
appealable before NCLAT and further may be appealed to the Supreme court of India. The
NCLAT is the appellate authority to hear appeals arising out of the orders passed by the Board
in respect of Insolvency Professional Agency or Insolvency Professional or Information
Utilities.xxiii

The Adjudicating Authority’s foremost power lies in approval or rejection of the resolution
plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant. Section 31 of the code states that if the
Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the Committee of
Creditors and such resolution plan meets the requisites of section 30, it shall by order approves
the Resolution Plan. As per the Code, the Adjudicating Authority has limited powers that are
restricted to the extent confide in Section 30 and 31. However, in many precedents, it has
expanded its scope while examining the resolution plan in the interest of the creditors affecting
the Corporate Debtor.

Resolution Professional (RP)

Insolvency professionals are governed by special provisions under the code and play a central
role in efficient working of the insolvency process. An insolvency professional is a person who

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 252

is registered under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and is enrolled as a
member under section 206 with an insolvency professional agency.xxiv The Adjudicating
Authority appoints the Insolvency Professional when the CIRP begins against a Corporate
Debtor. The duration of this Insolvency Professional is for 30 days from the date of
commencement of CIRP and during this period it is called the Interim Resolution Professional
(IRP). The following functions are performed by IRP such as:

a. Calls for claims against the Corporate Debtor.

b. Verifies the claims against the Corporate Debtor.

c. Constitutes Committee of Creditors.

d. Runs the business of the Corporate Debtor.

e. Helps the creditors in reaching a consensus for a revival plan.

If the COC is satisfied by the IRP, it may in its first meeting (held within seven days) can
appoint the IRP as the Resolution Professional (RP) for the remaining duration of the CIRP.
However, the COC may also make an application with the Adjudicating Authority to change
the Resolution Professional.

During the CIRP, the board members of the Corporate Debtor are suspended, and it is the RP
who gets into their shoe. While performing his duties, the RP is required to act on behalf of the
board and take all the necessary steps and actions to keep the corporate debtor as a going
concern. It is the duty of RP to manage the properties and to carry out operations, to ensure that
the value of the Corporate Debtor does not depreciate while abiding by the laws. In the matter
of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd.,xxv the
Adjudicating Authority held, “Resolution Professional is acting as an officer of the court and
any hindrance in the working of the CIRP will amount to contempt of court.” It also clarified
that the RP discharges his duties as court officer and any non-compliance of the court officer
will be deemed as contempt of court.xxvi However, there are certain actions that can be taken
only with the approval of the COC under Section 28 of the Code. The RP may also be appointed
as a liquidator again by the NCLT by his/her consent if the company goes for liquidation later
on.xxvii

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 253

CRITICAL ANALYSIS: POWERS OF COC AND ADJUDICATING

AUTHORITY ON RESOLUTION PLAN

The IBC has brought a major shift from “Debtor in possession” to “Creditor in control” while
dealing in the insolvency of a corporate debtor. The aim of the Committee of Creditors is to
assess the commercial viability of the Corporate Debtor (CD) and bring modifications in the
debt contracts to help the CD to resolve the insolvency and keep the CD as a going concern. It
is the COC that receives the resolution plan from the resolution applicant to determine whether
to approve the same or go for liquidation. The COC has been given the power to decide on the
Resolution plan based on the assumption that the creditors would be in a better position to
decide on the commercial viability and decide on a remedy that would be beneficial for all the
stakeholders. Commercial wisdom of COC was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory v.
Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.xxviii, wherein it was held that the COC has the ultimate power to
accept or reject a resolution plan to rehabilitate the Corporate Debtor as their commercial
wisdom is of utmost priority under the Code. The COC must take into account the “feasibility
and viability” of a resolution plan, taking into consideration the manner of distribution of funds
among the different class of creditors. The legislature and the precedents set by the apex court
are clear on the fact that the decision concerning accepting a resolution plan is a commercial
decision, taken by the COC. The Code is incorporated to give creditors the power to decide on
the bad debt given to the corporate debtor as it is the creditor who suffers when a corporation
goes for liquidation.

The role of the Adjudicating Authority is to ensure that the approved resolution plan is
supported by not less than 66% of members in the COC and the resolution plan meets all the
requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code. The jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority
concerning the resolution plan is restricted to Section 30 of the Code and has no authority
beyond that. The Adjudicating Authority cannot make amendments to a resolution passed by
the COC which is in conformity with section 30(2), nor can it reject such a resolution plan
passed by the COC unless it is inconsistent with the provisions under the Code.

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 254

The apex court in the case of K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank,xxix laid down that the
commercial wisdom of the COC cannot be examined by the Adjudicating Authority and gave
the commercial wisdom of COC the paramount status, without any judicial intervention. Also,
the adjudicating authority or the appellant authority cannot inquire about the rejection of the
resolution plan by the committee of creditors as per the judgment of Rai Bahadur Shree Ram
and Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Bhuvan Madan RP of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltdxxx. In the
latest judgment by the NCLAT, in the case Santosh Wasantrao Walokar v. Vijay Kumar Iyer
and othersxxxi, while deciding the scope of jurisdiction of the AA and while approving the
resolution plan held that the AA cannot go into feasibility and viability of the resolution plan
which requires commercial wisdom of the COC and per se cannot be involved in commercial
wisdom of the COC. It is also pertinent to note that, there is no power given to the Adjudicating
Authority, Resolution Professional, or the Corporate Debtor to challenge the commercial
wisdom of the COC. Also, the dissenting creditors who do not support the resolution plan are
not empowered by the legislature to reverse the decision made by the COC. The intent of the
Code is clear that the Adjudicating Authority has limited powers in respect of resolution plans
and can only accept or reject the resolution plan passed by the COC on some occasions. This
intent of the legislature can be seen in the BLRC report of 2015 which states that the appropriate
disposition of a defaulting firm is a business decision, and only the creditors should make it.xxxii
In the matter of ICIC Bank Limited v. Unimark Remedies Ltd.xxxiii along with many other
precedents, it was held that the spirit of the Code is of paramount importance.
The introduction of IBC is recent in the insolvency regime and is evolving over time. This
evolution and development in the Code can also be seen from the precedents set by the
Adjudicating Authority. Though the AA has limited powers with respect to resolution plans, in
many cases we can see that the AA keeping in mind the objective of the Code has pronounced
orders which are beyond its powers conferred and has experimented while adjudicating upon
new dilemmas in the CIRP process and the apex court has upheld various such adjudications
in plethora of cases. In the landmark case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd v. Union of India,xxxiv the
apex court upheld the decision of NCLAT and recognized that modification of resolution plan
can be brought under the purview of AA if such a plan discriminates against the Operational
creditors. The NCLAT modifies the resolution plans passed by the Committee of Creditors

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 255

when there is a discrimination against the operational creditors. However, it did not discuss if
such modifications can be done only when there is discrimination or on general grounds that
are not stated under section 30(2) of the code. The case of Binani Industries Limited v. Bank of
Baroda & Anrxxxv and the connected matter of Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Ultra Tech
Cement Ltd. & Coxxxvi. are exceptional cases where the revised resolution plan submitted by
Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. was approved by NCLAT and rejected the resolution plan of the rival
applicant, Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd., stating the resolution plan to be “unbalanced and
discriminatory” in nature. This decision of the NCLAT was upheld by the apex court. In this
case, the AA believed that discrimination between the resolution applicants in the revised
resolution plan was not even considered by the COC which was offered much before the
resolution plan that was approved by the COC. The NCLT also opined that the COC had failed
to safeguard the interest of all the stakeholders and had ignored the resolution plan that
preserved the interest of all the creditors and maximized the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
This established that there was no application of mind by the COC and the intervention of the
AA was required to safeguard the interest of all the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor.

Though there have been precedents stating that the COC based on its commercial wisdom has
the final say on the approval of resolution plan, it is observed that the AA in some cases have
intervened in the approval of resolution plans to uphold the objectives of the Code. In Arcelor
Mittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Guptaxxxvii, where while examining the power of
the

AA the apex court observed that once the COC approves a resolution plan and submits it to the
AA, the AA need not only check the conformity of resolution plan with section 30 (2) but also
needs to be satisfied that the approved resolution plan does not violate any provision of the
Code. Thus, the AA has the responsibility to check that the spirit of the Code is not
compromised during the CIRP process.

In Pratik Ramesh Chirana v. Trinity Auto Components Ltd.xxxviii as well, the NCLT Mumbai
bench emphasized on the word ‘satisfaction’ in section 31 of the Code, the AA went further
and opined that the word ‘satisfaction’ has a broader ambit and includes satisfaction which can
be either objective, subjective, or both. The NCLT, by objective satisfaction, meant that before

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 256

approving a resolution plan, the objective of the Code must be kept in mind, and on the other
hand, subjective satisfaction is the scrutiny of the resolution plan from a financial point of view.
Though the legislature is of the view that the approval of the resolution plans is essentially the
undertakings of the COC, the precedents by the apex court and AA have made it clear that the
AA should also examine the resolution plans so that the approved resolution plans are non-
discriminatory and endorses the spirit of the code.

It can be seen from the above-cited cases that the Code intends to empower the Creditors and
has placed reliance on their prudence while approving or rejecting a resolution plan for the
revival of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, this method of resolving the financial crisis of the
corporate debtor is highly based on the commercial wisdom of the COC. The Code was brought
into force to ensure that the Corporate Debtor can continue as a going concern, and it becomes
the duty of the COC to keep their personal interest aside and approve a resolution plan that is
beneficial for the Corporate Debtor. This process should not be used by the COC as a recovery
mechanism but to revive the Corporate Debtor by resolving the distressed corporations in. The
Code also aims to reorganize such sick companies and aims to reduce the NPAs of banks which
would help in growth of the economy. Hence, the author is of the view that AA in some cases
has been correct in experimenting with the powers conferred by the code to resolve the
contemporary issues during the CIRP process and to uphold the objective of the code.

CONCLUSION

After analysing the precedents set by the AA, an ambiguity in the powers between the COC
and the AA while deciding on the resolution plans can be noticed. It is pertinent that the
creditors are impacted the most when the Corporate Debtor goes into liquidation as the credit
given by the creditors is at stake which may or may not be recovered from the Corporate
Debtor. So, it is imperative for the COC to decide on the resolution plan, keeping in mind the
credit given to the corporate debtor while protecting them from liquidation. The Code was
brought into force to ensure that the Corporate Debtor can continue as a going concern, hence,
the COC must keep its personal interest aside and approve a resolution plan that is beneficial
for the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, this process should not be used by the COC as a recovery

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
 An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 257

mechanism but as an approach to resolve the distressed corporations in reorganizing and

reducing the NPA’s in the economy. The

Resolution Professional also plays a significant role in the CIRP, and it is important that the
appointed Resolution Professional, is rational, and keeps a fair mind while conducting CIRP.
The Code recognizes this concern and hence, provides for disciplinary actions that can be taken
as a recourse against the Resolution Professional. In such a situation, there is always a scope
for the creditors to collude with the Resolution Professional during the CIRP, which may not
be in the interest of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, it is vital that the working of COC is
monitored by AA while approving or rejecting a resolution plan, to seek the fair resolution
process of the Corporate Debtor and to uphold the objectives of the Code.

ENDNOTES

i
Rakesh Wadhwa, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Vol 46 I No. 09, Pg. 23 Chartered Secretary ISSN
No.
0972-1983 ICSI (Sep. 2016).
ii
Reddy Shreya, Understanding of the IBC, (July 2019). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3425370
iii
Understanding the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
https://www.ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/whatsnew/2019/Jun/190609,UnderstandingtheIBC_Final_2019-
0609%2018:20:22.pdf
iv
Ibid.
v
Section 5 (1) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
vi
Section 6 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
vii
Debt is the amount which is due and which is to be claimed.
viii
Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
ix
Any person to whom a financial debt is owed and includes a person to whom such debt has been legally
assigned or transferred to.
x
A debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and
include certain type of debts provided in clause (a) to (i) of this section.
xi
Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules,
2016.
xii
Section 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy, 2016.
xiii
Section 8 (1) of the of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
xiv
It is a person who provides any services or produce and supply any goods to the (Corporate Debtor) for
consideration but did not receive any consideration from the (Corporate Debtor).
xv
Debt which arises from goods, services, employment and statutory debts.
xvi
Section 21 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
xvii
Section 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
xviii
End of the Road for CIRP: An Impasse at the COC, The Indian Review of Corporate and Commercial Laws
(Aug 2019) https://www.irccl.in/single-post/2019/08/29/End-of-the-Road-for-CIRP-An-Impasse-at-the-COC

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 258

xix
Vide Notification No. IBBI/2016-17/GN/REG004, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III,
Sec.4, vide No. 432, dated 30th November, 2016 (w.e.f.01.12.2016).
xx
https://www.ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/whatsnew/2019/Mar/Charter%20IP-CoC_2019-03-
01%2021:55:28.pdf
xxi
Section 30 (4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
xxii
Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
xxiii
Rakesh Wadhwa, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Vol 46 I No. 09, Pg. 23 Chartered Secretary ISSN
No. 0972-1983 ICSI (Sep. 2016),
https://www.icsi.edu/media/webmodules/linksofweeks/ICSI_CS_SEP2016.pdf
xxiv
Section 3 (19) of IBC, 2016
xxv
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd., CP (IB)-1882/MB/2018
xxvi
Charter IP-CoC_2019-03-01, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/whatsnew/2019/Mar/Charter%20IP-CoC_2019-03-01%2021:55:28.pdf
xxvii
Dr. Binoy J. Kattadiyi, Swati, ‘A ROLE OF INSOLVENCY PROFESSIONALS UNDER INDIAN
INSOLVENCY REGIME of IBBI,’ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, ISSN:2277-7881; VOL:9, ISSUE:3(3), (March 2020)
xxviii
Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., 2019 SCC Online
SC
1478.
xxix
K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2019 SCC Online SC 257.
xxx
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Company Appeal (Insolvency) No. 207-208 of 2020.
xxxi
Wasantrao Walokar v. Vijay Kumar Iyer and others, MANU/NL/0039/2020
xxxii
The Report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee Vo I: Rationale and Design, (Nov. 2015),
https://ibbi.gov.in/BLRCReportVol1_04112015.pdf
xxxiii
ICIC Bank Limited v. Unimark Remedies Ltd., MA No. 1529 OF 2018 IN CP No. 197 OF
2018.
xxxiv
Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17.
xxxv
Binani Industries Limited vs. Bank of Baroda & Anr. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2018 .
xxxvi
Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. & Co., MANU/NL/0108/2018 144 CLA 490
xxxvii
Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta, Civil Appeal Nos. 9402 – 9405 /2018
xxxviii
Pratik Ramesh Chirana v. Trinity Auto Components Ltd., CP No. 1032/I&BC/MB/MAH/2017

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Volume 8 Issue 1 – ISSN 2455 2437
January 2022
www.thelawbrigade.com