Breaking News

SC quashes RBI circular against defaulters

NEW DELHI: In a large setback to efforts for restoration of unhealthy money owed of companies owing Rs 2,000 crore or more to banks, the Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the RBI’s February 12, 2018, circular, which directed banks to transport against defaulters below the Insolvency and Banking Code (IBC) on their failure to pay up within 180 days from March 1, 2018.

A bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran additionally quashed all IBC proceedings initiated by way of banks below the RBI circular against defaulters.

The February 12 Reserve Bank circular decoded

On February 12, 2018, the RBI wrote to banks asking them to categorise as a defaulter any corporate that fails to fulfill the cost closing date even by way of an afternoon. The circular additionally compelled banks to tug these companies to chapter court docket if the defaults weren't resolved in 180 days. The circular did away with various loan-restructuring schemes that aimed to give wired debtors more time to pay off.

Thus, the apex court docket turned the clock again to March 1, 2018, giving a huge reduction to defaulters who owe Rs 2,000 crore or more to banks. “All movements taken below the said circular, including motion wherein the Insolvency Code has been brought on, must fall together with the said circular,” it said.

However, this ruling won't affect initiation of IBC proceedings by way of banks against large defaulters taken ahead of, or independent of, the RBI circular.

One such example is the IBC proceedings launched by way of a State Bank of India-led consortium against Essar Steel, which on fruits of proceedings is ready to be taken over by way of Arcelor Mittal. Essar Steel had a debt of Rs 45,000 crore. Writing the 84-page judgment, Justice Nariman accepted the main plea of senior recommend A M Singhvi, who gave the impression for the Association of Power Producers and argued that peculiarity of rigidity factors in each sector would no longer permit the RBI to bracket defaulting companies in several sectors for proceeding below IBC. Singhvi’s arguments were followed by way of other recommend who gave the impression for defaulting companies operating in various sectors including telecom, metal, infrastructure, sports activities infrastructure, sugar, fertilisers and shipyards.

SC: Circular unlawful because of lack of Central authorisation

Although the SC accepted senior recommend Rakesh Dwivedi’s arguments and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act, which empowers the Centre to workout the power itself or authorise the RBI to direct banks to continue against particular defaulters, it found the February 12 circular to be unlawful as there used to be no such authorisation from the Centre to RBI to direct banks to continue against defaulters by way of specifying a default limit and a 180-day length.

“The Banking Regulation Act specifies that the central govt is both to workout powers together with the RBI or on its own. The role assigned by way of Section 35AA, on the subject of beginning the insolvency answer procedure below the Insolvency Code, is thus, necessary. Without authorisation of the central govt, clearly, no such instructions can also be issued,” the bench said.

Referring to Section 35AA, the bench said, “It is clear that instructions that may be issued by way of the RBI (to banks) below Section 35AA (with authorisation from Centre) can best be in respect of particular defaulters by way of particular debtors. This could also be the working out of the central govt when it issued the notification on May five, 2017, which authorized the RBI to factor such instructions best in respect of ‘a default’ below the Code. Thus, any route in respect of debtors typically, could be ultra vires (in violation of) Section 35AA.”

Justices Nariman and Saran additionally said the RBI circular “applies to banking and nonbanking establishments alike, as banking and non-banking establishments are continuously in a joint lenders’ forum which jointly lend sums of cash to debtors. Such non-banking financial establishments are, therefore, inseparable from banking establishments insofar as the application of the RBI circular is anxious”.

Having clarified this, the bench said proceedings initiated by way of each banking and non-banking financial establishments below the circular would have to be quashed together with the circular.

No comments