logologo
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Team
  • Expertise
    • Energy and Infrastructure
    • Property Law
    • Regulatory Compliance Law Services
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution Legal Services
    • Corporate & Commercial Law Services
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution Legal Services
    • Gaming & Sports Law Services
    • Real Estate Lawyers in Delhi
    • Labour & Employment
    • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Legal Services
  • Legal Alerts
    • Articles
    • Recent News
  • Contact Us
011-40743543
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Team
  • Expertise
    • Energy and Infrastructure
    • Property Law
    • Regulatory Compliance Law Services
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution Legal Services
    • Corporate & Commercial Law Services
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution Legal Services
    • Gaming & Sports Law Services
    • Real Estate Lawyers in Delhi
    • Labour & Employment
    • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Legal Services
  • Legal Alerts
    • Articles
    • Recent News
  • Contact Us
logologo
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Team
  • Expertise
    • Energy and Infrastructure
    • Property Law
    • Regulatory Compliance Law Services
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution Legal Services
    • Corporate & Commercial Law Services
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution Legal Services
    • Gaming & Sports Law Services
    • Real Estate Lawyers in Delhi
    • Labour & Employment
    • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Legal Services
  • Legal Alerts
    • Articles
    • Recent News
  • Contact Us
011-40743543
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Team
  • Expertise
    • Energy and Infrastructure
    • Property Law
    • Regulatory Compliance Law Services
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution Legal Services
    • Corporate & Commercial Law Services
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution Legal Services
    • Gaming & Sports Law Services
    • Real Estate Lawyers in Delhi
    • Labour & Employment
    • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Legal Services
  • Legal Alerts
    • Articles
    • Recent News
  • Contact Us
July 24, 2023 by Shubham Arya Recent News 0 comments

Supreme Court Clarifies Priority of Secured Creditors over Government Dues in Insolvency Cases

Secured Creditors vs Government Dues: The Supreme Court’s Verdict and its Impact on Insolvency Proceedings

In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the hierarchy of debt repayment in insolvency cases, emphasizing that secured creditors enjoy higher priority than dues owed to the Central or State Government. The Court highlighted the overriding effect of Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), stating that it supersedes provisions of other specific enactments such as the Electricity Act, 2003. This decision provides essential clarity on the treatment of government dues and reaffirms the principles of the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC.

 

Background

 

The case involved Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) and Raman Ispat Private Limited. PVVNL sought attachment of the respondent’s property over unpaid electricity charges. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) set aside the attachment, allowing PVVNL to participate in the liquidation process as per the IBC. PVVNL contended that the Electricity Act should prevail over the IBC as it is a special enactment dealing with insolvency. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the IBC accords higher priority to secured creditors.

 

Secured Creditors vs. Government Dues

 

The Supreme Court emphasized that, in terms of the provisions of IBC, secured creditors at a higher footing than dues owed to the Central or State Government. The hierarchy of debt repayment under the waterfall mechanism of Section 53 of the IBC has been analyzed by the Supreme Court in the above judgment as under:

 

The priority of claims, indicated in the hierarchy of preferences, under the waterfall mechanism is therefore: Firstly, insolvency resolution process costs and the liquidation costs; Secondly, workmen’s dues for the period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date and debts owed to a secured creditor in the event such secured creditor has relinquished security; Thirdly, wages and any unpaid dues owed to employees other than workmen for the period of 12 months preceding the liquidation commencement date; Fourthly, financial debts owed to unsecured creditors; Fifthly, any amount due to the central government and the state government and debts owed to a secured creditor for any amount unpaid following the enforcement of security interest; Sixthly, any remaining debts and dues; Seventhly, preference shareholders; and Eighthly equity shareholders or partners. This hierarchy or order of priority thus accords government debts [clause (e)] and operational debts [clause (f)] lower priority than dues owed to unsecured financial creditors.

 

The Court further observed that amounts due to the government (i.e., payable into the Consolidated Fund of India or Consolidated Fund of a State) are ranked in the same manner as those of secured creditors who do not relinquish their security interest [Section 53 (1) (e) (ii)].

 

The Court further held that dues payable to statutory corporations which do not fall within the description “amounts due to the central or state government” such as for instance amounts payable to corporations created by statutes which have distinct juristic entity but whose dues do not constitute government dues payable or those payable into the respective Consolidated Funds stand on a different footing. Such corporations may be operational creditors or financial creditors or secured creditors depending on the nature of the transactions entered into by them with the corporate debtor.

 

In the context of the present case, the Court clarified that dues owed to Distribution Licensees such as PVVNL do not fall within the description of Section 53(1)(f) of the IBC.

 

Clarification of the Rainbow Papers Case

 

The Supreme Court clarified that the judgment in the Rainbow Papers case is confined to its specific facts and cannot be universally applied. The Rainbow Papers case dealt with a resolution process while the present case involved liquidation. The Court noted that the Rainbow Papers judgment did not consider the provisions of the IBC which prioritize secured creditors over government dues. The careful design of Section 53 in the IBC places secured creditors ahead of government dues in the hierarchy of debt repayment.

 

Overriding Effect of Section 238

 

The Supreme Court emphasized the overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC. It stated that Section 238 prevails over other specific enactments including the Electricity Act, 2003. Despite the non-obstante clauses in the Electricity Act, the court held that the IBC’s provisions which prioritize secured creditors take precedence. This ensures consistency and uniformity in insolvency proceedings, promotes the resolution process and safeguards the interests of all stakeholders involved.

 

Conclusion

 

The Supreme Court’s judgment on the hierarchy of debt repayment in insolvency cases provides crucial clarity and reaffirms the priority given to secured creditors over government dues. By upholding the overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC, the Court ensures that the IBC’s provisions prevail in insolvency proceedings, promoting the resolution process and maintaining a fair and equitable distribution of assets. This ruling has far-reaching implications, bringing certainty to the insolvency ecosystem and strengthening the rights of secured creditors. It establishes a robust legal framework for insolvency proceedings and reinforces the principles of fair and efficient debt recovery.

Demystifying the Waterfall Mechanism under IBC

 

The Waterfall Mechanism under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) outlines the priority of creditor claims during the distribution of assets in an insolvency case. Section 53 of the IBC governs this mechanism. Secured creditors have the highest priority, followed by unsecured and operational creditors. A “non obstante clause” is a legal provision that takes precedence over conflicting laws. Secured creditors are those with collateral, giving them a stronger claim to recover their dues. In the IBC, the Waterfall Mechanism ensures a structured approach to prioritize creditor claims based on their type and status in the insolvency process.

Debt Hierarchy Debt Recovery Debt Repayment IBC Section 238 Insolvency Cases Insolvency Proceedings Secured Creditors
Share

Related Posts

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has given a green signal to cost and time overruns in POWERGRID NM Transmission's project
by Shikha SoodMay 23, 20230 comments

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘CERC’) allows Time Over Run and Cost Over Run on account of Changes in Law and Force Majeure Events encountered by POWERGRID NM Transmission.

Read More
Unstamped Arbitration Agreements
by Pallavi SaigalMay 30, 20230 comments

Decoding the Supreme Court’s Stance on Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: A Legal Perspective

Read More
Unauthorized Power Injection
by Reeha SinghAugust 7, 20230 comments

Punjab State Commission Dismisses Unauthorized Power Injection Claim

Read More
Tribunal Upholds Defaulter Pays Principle Powergrid Wins TANTRANSCO Appeal
by R AssociatesJanuary 6, 20250 comments

Tribunal Upholds Defaulter Pays Principle: Powergrid Wins TANTRANSCO Appeal

Read More

Leave a Comment! Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Managing Employee Leaves: A Comprehensive Guide for Employers in DelhiPrevious Post
Sexual Harassment in Online Gaming: A Closer Examination and a Call for Better RegulationNext Post

About Us

Serving clients with unwavering dedication and ethical principles for more than a decade. Step in confidently knowing that you are in capable hands.

Service Offerings

  • Company Registration in India
  • Business Setup in India
  • Startup Lawyers in India
  • Media and Entertainment Legal Services
  • Real Estate Lawyers in Delhi
  • Gaming & Sports Law Services
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Legal Services
  • Infrastructure and Energy Law Firm in Delhi

Other Services

  • Labour and Employment Law Services
  • Regulatory Compliance Law Services
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution Legal Services
  • Corporate & Commercial Law Services
  • Alternate Dispute Resolution Legal Services
  • UK | R Associates
  • US | R Associates

Stay Connected

O-24/A, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi -110014

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 011-40743543
Get Directions

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2023 R Associates. All Rights Reserved.

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. The user acknowledges that there has been no advertisement and personal communication from R Associates, any information obtained or material downloaded from this website is completely of the user’s volition and any transmission, receipt, or use of this site would not create any lawyer-client relationship. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she in all cases must seek independent legal advice.

  • ↓
  • Reach Out To Us