Cheque Bounce cases can't be filed or continued against firms facing IBC proceedings - SC
PrintListen to this Article
The top court, however, did not extend the benefit of moratorium on judicial proceedings in cheque bounce cases to directors or signatories of cheques of such firms, saying criminal cases would continue against "natural persons".
A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman was faced with the legal issue whether "the institution or continuation of a proceeding under Section 138/141 (cheque bounce cases) of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be said to be covered by the moratorium provision, namely, Section 14 of IBC."
Under IBC, the moment a corporate insolvency resolution process is initiated against a company, it gets statutory protection under section 14 and consequently, a moratorium is put on judicial proceedings against it.
Holding that the judicial proceedings in cheque bounce cases are covered under IBC, the apex court said, "it is clear that a Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a 'civil sheep' in a 'criminal wolf's' clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court in cheque bouncing cases, as has been seen by us in the analysis made ... Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bench, also comprising justices Navin Sinha and K M Joseph, disagreed with the judgements of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts on the issue in which they had held that the cheque bounce cases can continue against the firms facing insolvency resolution proceedings under the IBC.
"In conclusion, disagreeing with the Bombay High Court and the Calcutta High Court judgments in Tayal Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra..., and M/s MBL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Manik Chand Somani..., respectively, we hold that a Section 138/141 proceeding against a corporate debtor is covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC," Justice Nariman, writing the judgement for the bench, said.
In the 120-page judgement, the top court dealt in detail the various legal issues related to IBC and the Negotiable Instruments Act.
"Since the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC, by which continuation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process are interdicted...
"Thus, for the period of moratorium, since no Section 138/141 proceeding can continue or be initiated against the corporate debtor because of a statutory bar, such proceedings can be initiated or continued against the persons mentioned in Section 141(1) and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This being the case, it is clear that the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable...," it said.
It held the proceedings related to the cheque bounce cases are covered under the same term used in IBC and hence can be stalled against the companies during the period of insolvency resolution proceedings.
It referred to the difference between criminal and civil contempt and said that though the proceedings in cheque bounce cases are described as "quasi-criminal" in nature, but it can be construed as civil in nature as only the victims can file private complaint and moreover, the courts cannot take note of the offence in its own.
The judgement came on a batch of appeals and the lead petition was filed by one P Mohanraj of a company against whom cheque bounce cases were allowed to be continued.
One company, Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt Ltd, had supplied steel products to one M/s. Diamond Engineering Pvt. Ltd (DEPL) in 2015-16 and later filed two cheque bounce cases against DEPL in Mumbai after several cheques of total value of approximately Rs 25 crore got dishonoured.
However, due to the onset of insolvency proceedings the adjudicating authority under IBC stayed further proceedings in the two criminal complaints pending before the magisterial court.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal set aside the moratorium order of the adjudicating authority under IBC and held that cheque bounce case, being a criminal law provision, cannot be held to be a "proceeding" within the meaning of Section 14 of the IBC. SJK Holding that the judicial proceedings in cheque bounce cases are covered under IBC, the apex court said, "it is clear that a Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a 'civil sheep' in a 'criminal wolf's' clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court in cheque bouncing cases, as has been seen by us in the analysis made ... Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act."
Category : Insolvent Professional | Comments : 0 | Hits : 636
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Monday ordered insolvency proceedings against media baron Subhash Chandra on a plea filed by Indiabulls Housing Finance. A two-member Delhi bench of the NCLT directed initiation of personal insolvency proceedings against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) Chairman Emeritus Chandra, who was a guarantor for a loan given to Essel group firm Vivek Infracon Ltd. The NCLT bench, consisting members Ashok K Bhardwaj and Subrata K Das,...
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) invites suggestions/comments from public and regulated entities, on the Regulations for simplifying, easing and reducing cost of compliance. The suggestions are invited in pursuance of the announcement made in the Union Budget for FY 2023-24 by the Union Finance Minister: “To simplify, ease and reduce cost of compliance, financial sector regulators will be requested to carry out a comprehensive review of existing regulations. For th...
To make surety bond business more attractive, the government is looking at making relevant changes in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to consider insurers as financial creditor in case of default of infra projects. The surety bond issued by a general insurance company is a three-party contract by which one party (the surety) guarantees the performance or obligations of a second party (the principal) to a third party (the obligee). The surety is a company that provides the fina...
The National Company Law Tribunal Delhi recently observed that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be used as a recovery tool. “We are of the view that in the present case the applicants are already having demands drafts of amount exceeding the defaulted amount in this petition and moreover IBC cannot be used as a tool for recovery; the settlement has been arrived between the parties. The amount has been paid in excess of the default amount and Ld. Counsel for the applicant has al...
India’s turbulent aviation sector will likely see another player go belly up with Go First of the Wadias filing for voluntary insolvency before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The budget carrier said it is cancelling all flights on May 3, 4, and 5 and will refund the full fares to the passengers. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has questioned the cancellation and issued a show-cause to the airline. Go First has been asked to submit its response within 24 ho...
Comments