iPleaders

Pendency of Proceedings Under COPRA vis-à-vis Initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC

May 03, 2018
4646 Views

Image Courtesy: http://sofatassociates.com/category/law-firms/

In this article, Aarthi Sashi, pursuing Diploma in Entrepreneurship Administration and Business Laws from NUJS, Kolkata discusses the Pendency of Proceedings Under COPRA in Regard to Initiation of Insolvency Proceedings.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC or Code) which has been in existence for over a year lays down a comprehensive framework for conducting efficient insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings against corporate debtors. Of the several noteworthy provisions under the Code, an important aspect that cannot go unaddressed is, how proceedings under the IBC can be harmonized vis-à-vis proceedings under other legislation. This article seeks to do just that by highlighting the role that pending disputes under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (COPRA or the Act) would play in initiating a resolution proceeding under the IBC.

Nature of Consumer Claims: Whether It Is Financial or Operational Debt?

The first and foremost question to be determined for the purpose of maintainability of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is whether the creditor filing one would be a financial creditor or an operational creditor.

Financial Creditor

A financial creditor has been defined to mean a person to whom a financial debt is owed[1]. A financial debt has been defined to include money borrowed against payment of interest, amount raised by an acceptance credit facility or by stocks, bonds, debentures or similar instruments, liability in respect of a hire purchase contract, receivables, amounts under other transactions having commercial effect of borrowing, counter indemnity obligation, liability in respect of a guarantee or indemnity and the like[2]. Therefore, by a bare perusal of the provisions, it can be inferred that a CIRP initiated pursuant to a debt in the nature of consumer-related aspects does not fall within the nature of claims encompassed in the definition above.

Operational Creditor

Another type of creditor who can initiate a CIRP under the IBC is an “operational creditor”. An operational creditor under the IBC is someone to whom an operation debt is owed[3]. Further, an operational debt has been defined to mean inter alia dues with regard to the provision of goods or services[4].

Distinction between a Financial Creditor and an Operational Creditor

The Final Report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee[5] (see here) in paragraph 5.2.1 drew out the distinction between an operational creditor and financial creditor.

A financial creditor is one whose relationship with the entity is a purely financial contract such as loans or debt security. The relationship of an operational creditor with the entity, however, is said to arise out of a transaction on operations. In the event that a creditor’s relationship with the entity stems from both i.e., a financial contract and a transaction on operations, the creditor would be a financial one to the extent of a financial debt and an operational one to the extent of an operational debt. This distinction was appreciated and applied by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Principal Bench, Delhi in the case of Col. Vinod Awasthy v. AMR Infrastructure Limited[6](see here).

Having laid down the contours differentiating an operational creditor from a financial creditor, it becomes essential to identify the nature of debt that consumer-related issues raise. The subject matter of consumer issues is essentially in the nature of goods and services. This can be evidenced by the application clause in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides that the Act applies to all goods and services[7]. Moreover, any relationship in consumer claims essentially arises out of a transaction on operations. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that consumer-related debts are in the nature of an operational debt and not a financial one.

Consumer Disputes vis-à-vis IBC Proceedings

Given that consumer disputes are in the nature of operational debts, an application for CIRP would lie under Section 9 in accordance with Section 8 of the Code. Section 8 unlike Section 7 (which applies to financial creditors) provides that within ten days of demand notice served upon the corporate debtor, the existence of a “pending dispute” must be brought to the notice of the operational creditor which would then serve as a bar to an institution of IBC proceedings[8].

Pursuantly, Section 9(1) provides that an application for CIRP can be filed within ten days of providing notice to the corporate debtor only if the notice of dispute has not been filed. Accordingly, Section 9(5)(ii)(d) provides that the application under Section 9 ought to be rejected if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor.

Definition of ‘Dispute’ under IBC

It now becomes pertinent to discuss what the term “dispute” encompasses to identify if consumer disputes can serve as a bar to the institution of CIRP. “Dispute” has been defined under the IBC inclusively to include a suit or arbitration proceeding pertaining to the quality of goods or services, existence of debt or breach of representation or warranty[9].

As discussed earlier, a dispute in the nature of quality of goods and services comes within the ambit of consumer protection laws. To substantiate the same, reference shall be made to the COPRA. Section 2(f) defines defect in goods and section 2(g) pertains to the deficiency in services, both of which include in its sweep any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in inter alia quality of the goods and services.

Further, “complaint” under the Act has been defined to include defects in goods[10] and deficiency in services[11]. The power to deal with such complaints has been bestowed upon the District Forum[12], State Commission[13] and National Commission[14] based on their respective pecuniary jurisdictions.

Therefore, COPRA provides a well-equipped mechanism to deal with issues that arise out of the quality of goods and services and if a claim so arises, can fall within the ambit of “dispute” under the IBC. The following section containing notable judgments further substantiate this point.

Notable Judgments: Judicial Conundrum

Several noteworthy judgments in the context of IBC vis-à-vis other laws including Consumer Protection Laws are to be discussed to holistically understand the concept.

Judicial precedents taking a twist

Conclusion

The presence of the terms “quality of goods and services” as a form of dispute that could serve as a restrict the initiation of CIRP by an operational creditor, has an inextricable link with COPRA as it predominantly deals with that as the subject matter. This, in addition to the fact that judicial authorities have interpreted the term “dispute” to be wide and inclusive as to include proceedings before consumer fora as well, only seeks to further reinforce this position. Although it has been held that forum shopping cannot be used as a defence against the initiation of CIRP, reading of section 5(6) with section 8(2) essentially curbs just that. Hence, consumer disputes do indeed serve as a bar to the initiation of CIRP.

References

[1] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 s. 5(7)

[2] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 s. 5(8)

[3] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 s. 5(20)

[4] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 s. 5(21)

[5] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, The report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee Volume I: Rationale and Design. Available from: http://ibbi.gov.in/BLRCReportVol1_04112015.pdf [29 April 2018]

[6] [2017] 141 SCL 70

[7] The Consumer Protection Act 1986 s. 1(4).

[8] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 s. 8(2)

[9] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 s. 5(6)

[10] The Consumer Protection Act 1986 s. 2(c)(ii)

[11] The Consumer Protection Act 1986 s. 2(c)(iii)

[12] The Consumer Protection Act 1986 s. 11

[13] The Consumer Protection Act 1986 s. 17

[14] The Consumer Protection Act 1986 s. 21

[15] [2017] 142 SCL 310

[16] Kirusa Softwares Pvt. Ltd v. Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 142 SCL 310 (para. 25)

[17] Kirusa Softwares Pvt. Ltd v. Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 142 SCL 310 (para. 29)

[18] Kirusa Softwares Pvt. Ltd v. Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 142 SCL 310 (para. 35)

[19] Kirusa Softwares Pvt. Ltd v. Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 142 SCL 310 (para. 26)

[20] Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Softwares Pvt. Ltd., [2017] SCC 1154

[21] MANU/NL/0030/2017

[22] [2017] 141 SCL 70

[23] [2017] 141 SCL 427

[24] [2017] 143 SCL 32

[25] MANU/NC/1403/2018

[26] Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR [1979] SC 262

 

Exit mobile version