Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The legal framework and judicial precedents establish that CIRP proceedings are not recovery proceedings, and attempting to use them as such is contrary to the purpose and scope of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) ["Sumit Binani, RP of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. vs Power Finance Corporation Ltd. - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the complex world of corporate insolvency in India, a common question arises: Can you send me some judgments to show that the CIRP proceedings are not recovery proceedings? This query highlights a fundamental misunderstanding that often trips up creditors, debtors, and practitioners alike. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is frequently mistaken for a tool for debt recovery, akin to actions under SARFAESI or the Companies Act. However, judicial precedents firmly establish that CIRP is a resolution mechanism aimed at revival, not mere recovery. This blog post delves into the legislative intent, key judgments, and practical distinctions, drawing from authoritative sources to provide clarity.
Note: This article offers general insights based on judicial interpretations and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified professional for specific cases.
CIRP, triggered under Sections 7, 9, or 10 of the IBC, kicks off upon admission of an insolvency petition against a corporate debtor. Unlike traditional recovery suits, its goal is to assess the debtor's viability, maximize asset value, and facilitate a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The process emphasizes restructuring and continuation of the business as a going concern.
The IBC's Preamble underscores this: it seeks to consolidate laws for reorganization and insolvency resolution to promote entrepreneurship and availability of credit. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that CIRP is beneficial legislation to put the corporate debtor back on its feet, not a mere recovery legislation for creditorsBabulal Vardharji Gurjar VS Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited - 2020 5 Supreme 159.
The IBC's framework is designed for insolvency resolution, not adversarial debt enforcement. As noted in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (referenced in Babulal Vardharji Gurjar VS Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited - 2020 5 Supreme 159), the primary focus of the legislation is to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor by protecting the corporate debtor from its own management and from a corporate death by liquidation.
This intent is echoed in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited VS A. Balakrishnan - 2022 5 Supreme 412, where the court clarifies: the Code is a beneficial legislation which puts the corporate debtor back on its feet and that the resolution process is not adversarial to the corporate debtor but, in fact, protective of its interests. Further, the process is aimed at revival and continuation of the corporate debtor and is not a mere money recovery legislation for the creditors.
These pronouncements distinguish CIRP from recovery tools, focusing on stakeholder balance and value maximization Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. VS Girish Sriram Juneja - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 246.
Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court and NCLT/NCLAT, have delivered landmark judgments reinforcing this distinction. Here are pivotal ones:
These cases collectively affirm: CIRP is not a recovery process but a structured path to resolution.
Additional precedents highlight how CIRP operates independently of recovery mechanisms:
In a case involving GST recovery during moratorium PRANAV DAMANIA vs DEPARTMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 8110, the tribunal ruled: Recovery of ₹83,89,000/- from the Corporate Debtor’s bank account by Respondents during moratorium is illegal; such recovery actions are void as per Section 14. Funds were ordered refunded, and accounts defrozen, underscoring that all recovery actions taken during the moratorium are void under Section 14 and must follow IBC priorities under Section 53.
Avoidance proceedings continue post-CIRP without halting resolution Tata Steel BSL Limited v. Venus Recruiterprivate Limited - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18116, as S.26 of the Code clarifies that the filing of an avoidance application under S.25 by the RP shall not affect the proceedings of the CIRP.
CoC supremacy in rejecting plans and extending timelines Sangram Gade vs Jogeshwari Breweries Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 4861 reinforces commercial wisdom for revival, not recovery: the decision of the CoC is supreme, being a commercial decision.
These illustrate CIRP's non-adversarial, collective nature, contrasting with unilateral recovery under SARFAESI or tax laws.
While CIRP isn't recovery:- Independent Proceedings: SARFAESI actions may continue pre-admission, but moratorium binds post-commencement Reliance Communication Limited VS Rajendra P. Bansal - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 70.- No Individual Enforcement: Creditors submit claims to RP; no direct suits.- Revival Priority: Resolution plans can restructure debts, often less than full recovery, balancing interests.
Exceptions? Government claims don't override moratorium; all follow IBC hierarchy. Practitioners should cite these distinctions to argue against treating CIRP as recovery forums.
| Aspect | CIRP (IBC) | Recovery Proceedings ||--------|------------|----------------------|| Objective | Revival & value maximization Babulal Vardharji Gurjar VS Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited - 2020 5 Supreme 159 | Debt collection (e.g., SARFAESI) || Process | CoC-led, moratorium-protected | Adversarial, individual suits || Outcome | Resolution plan or liquidation | Asset seizure/auction || Timeline | Time-bound (330 days max) | Varies, limitation-bound |
Judicial wisdom, from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited VS A. Balakrishnan - 2022 5 Supreme 412 to PRANAV DAMANIA vs DEPARTMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 8110, unequivocally positions CIRP as an insolvency resolution tool, not a recovery vehicle. By prioritizing revival, the IBC fosters economic growth, protecting corporate debtors while ensuring fair creditor participation.
Key Takeaways:- Cite legislative intent and quotes for arguments: revival-focused, not recovery Babulal Vardharji Gurjar VS Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited - 2020 5 Supreme 159.- Moratorium voids parallel recoveries Rohit Nath VS KEB Hana Bank Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2958.- CoC decisions drive outcomes, emphasizing commercial prudence.
For businesses facing distress, understanding this distinction can guide strategic decisions. Stay informed on evolving precedents, and always seek tailored advice.
References: Full list includes Babulal Vardharji Gurjar VS Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited - 2020 5 Supreme 159, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited VS A. Balakrishnan - 2022 5 Supreme 412, ICICI Bank LTD. VS SIDCO Leathers LTD. - 2006 5 Supreme 148, Rohit Nath VS KEB Hana Bank Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2958, PRANAV DAMANIA vs DEPARTMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 8110, and others noted.
#CIRP #IBCIndia #InsolvencyLaw
The NCLAT has specifically held that challenges to sale deeds, allegations of fraud in execution, or objections to transfer of property prior to initiation of CIRP do not fall within the scope of IBC proceedings. The ratio of that judgment applies with full force to the facts at hand. ... However, all those judgments are distinguishable on facts and do not dilute the binding ratio of the Supreme Court in Embassy Property, Gujarat Urja and TCS, which restrict NCLT’s jurisdiction where determination of ti....
It was urged that the Corporate Debtor did not disclose that the CIRP had been initiated, either during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act or in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. ... The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. ... (ii) The appellant failed to show that it filed its claim a....
HPCL, 2022 SCC Online SC 1385 wherein it is held that proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under the Code are not intended for debt recovery. The purpose of the Code is not to penalize solvent companies by initiating CIRP for disputed claims made by operational creditors. ... o The Appellant / Corporate Debtor’s contentions that the company is solvent and the matter should be resolved through civil proceedings or arbitration are not relevant to the initiation of CIR....
Since, the operational creditor has moved the petition under Section 9 for initiation of IBC, 2016 against the corporate debtor but as is observed from the submissions applicant appears to have not provided the requisite support in conducting the CIRP Proceedings by the RP. ... The Registry is directed to allot a case No. for the proceedings for which the Show Cause Notice is being issued to the Operational Creditor under Section 65(1) of IBC, 2016. Registry/Court Officer to list this matter on 02.10.20....
Therefore, after the conclusion of the CIRP, the office of the RP does not become functus officio and the avoidance proceedings do not come to an end. ... 24. ... This buttresses the interpretation that S.26 of the Code, in fact, clarifies that the filing of an avoidance application under S.25 by the RP shall not affect the proceedings of the CIRP. Therefore, being independent of CIRP, avoidance proceedings can continue parallelly....
However, it is needless to observe that the present Applicant shall be at liberty to participate in the subsequent proceedings, if so advised. IA 88/2025 1. ... Both Members of the CoC have expressed that the Resolution Plan, read with the revised offer submitted by Email dated 13.08.2025, is not accepted and has accordingly been rejected in the 14th Meeting of the CoC. ... Ltd. and other judgments, that the decision of the CoC is supreme, being a commercial decision. Accordingly, nothing survives in the present Application. 4. The Appli....
CA (AT) (Ins) No.608/2020 where NCLAT has determined that the Financial Creditor does not include the Decree Holder and allowed the Appeal, setting aside the orders of NCLT, admitting the CIRP. ... It is the contention of the Respondent that the present Appeal has been filed an untenable ground with an intention to frustrate the objection of IBC, 2016 and to delay the CIRP and that the entire Appeal is pinned on (a) Certain Judgments of NCLAT regarding limitation and (b) Allegations about the merits ... He had contended....
and sale of its securities in execution proceedings before Hon’ble High Court. ... The above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly lays down that there is a distinction between review and recall. ... 5.10 From the abovementioned judgments it is clear that the NCLT has power to recall its own order, however, such power must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. ... Further, since the Interlocutory Application seeking approval of the Resolution Plan has already been filed and is presently pending before this Tribunal, permitting ....
The said quantification was based on statutory notices, show-cause notices, orders under Sections 62 and 73 and further proceedings undertaken between 2019–2022. All steps in the assessment and recovery process were carried out strictly in accordance with the CGST/SGST Act. ... Respondent No. 2 respectfully submits that at the time of receipt of the notice, it was unaware of the CIRP proceedings initiated against the Corporate Debtor. ... Such conduct is contrary to the Code, which does not confer any p....
In fact, the said judgments will show Courts in India have time and again, affirmed the principle that money deposited in Court is merely placed beyond the reach of the judgment debtor pending the appeal. ... 14 of the CIRP. ... CIRP/liquidation. ... Appellant was not entitled to/the ‘owner’ of the said amount as on the date of commencement of CIRP (i.e., 15th May 2018). ... Under Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC, the continuation of any and all proceedings against a corpo....
5.3. MEL, being the party in default, is certainly unable to fulfil its obligations and cure the default despite opportunities given. This itself constitutes as a material breach of the terms of the contract which enables PTC to take recourse to the terms, including the right of termination. Merely because the CIRP proceedings are pending where some potential resolution applicants have shown interest, does not mean that PTC should be obligated to continue with the contract. It thus cannot be permitted to seek an injunction against termination or restrain against PTC to fulf....
CIRP proceedings and winding up proceedings could not have continued simultaneously. As against the aforesaid, in the facts of the present case, (i) the winding up order has been passed as far back as 12.03.1986 (i.e. before 35 years), (ii) the subject property of the R.6-Company (in liquidation) has been taken possession of and auctioned (in/around 1988-1990) in exercise of powers u/s. 29 of the SFC Act and in view of the orders of BIFR, AAIFR and learned Single Judge and the proposed disposal of the LPA, the said subject property will be considered as an asset of the auct....
The judgments cited by Mr. Chawla, in my opinion, are on their own facts and are not applicable to the present proceedings.” I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the arbitration agreement as contained in work order dated 1st April, 2005 also by incorporation forms part of the work order dated 7th December, 2005 and the disputes under the second agreement will be covered by the arbitration clause as contained in the first agreement.
It is submitted that it is not a case of transfer of proceedings but is rather a case of fresh initiation of CIRP proceedings before the NCLT. It is submitted that there is no bar for initiating fresh petition before the NCLT despite pendency of the present winding up proceedings. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel appearing for Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. submits that the Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. was entitled to approach the NCLT despite pendency of the present winding up proceedings. It is submitted that the Companies (Transfer....
When you are free you can send an email to me in his address.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
