This article is authored by Shubham Gupta, a 4th year student the Institute of Law, Nirma University.
Introduction
In the recent Adjudication officer (‘AO’) order dated
on 31st December2019, SEBI took a stand that it can proceed with the
adjudication proceedings against a company even though the company is under
liquidation. This stand is inconsistent with the approach adopted by SEBI till
now and is likely to be non-est. in law.
In this matter of Rajadhiraj Industries Ltd., AO had initiated adjudication proceedings against
Rajadhiraj Industries Ltd for non-redressal of investor grievances on SCORES
platforms within the stipulated time, and failure to submit to Action Taken
Report. When SCN notice was issued to the company, and it was found that
company is into closure since 1996, and from MCA records, it was observed that
the company has been provisionally wound up by the order of Indore High Court,
MP. The appointed official liquidator informed AO that the company is under
liquidation, and thus, no legal proceedings can be initiated against it.
Taking U-turn from the existing approach, AO ordered that
it can proceed with the adjudication proceedings- banked on that the adjudication
proceedings as to determine whether the SEBI laws were violated or not and, to
impose penalty. Taking reference to the apex court judgment in SV Kondaskar,
OL v VM Deshpande[1] – ruling
that liquidation court would have full power to demand the penalty from the
liquidator, AO held that adjudication proceedings wouldn’t be hampered by the
appointment of an Official liquidator.
Analysis
At the outset, this order is contrary to stand taken by SEBI till
now. Previously, the position in respect to adjudication proceedings was
different and had a radical inclination towards the halting and prohibiting the institution of any new
proceedings by SEBI without the approval of the appropriate authority. Earlier,
M/s Nova Surgikos Limited, the
similar facts were arrayed with respect to non-redressal of SCORES complaints,
and AO ordered the non-continuation of proceedings owing to the company is
under liquidation. Likewise, in Everonn Education Ltd, yielding to the fact that liquidator has been
appointed to overlook the affairs of the company, AO desisted from a continuation
of the said proceedings owing to non-approval from the court. It was further
reaffirmed in ABG Shipyard Ltd that leave of the appropriate is a sine qua
non for the continuation of the proceeding if the company is under liquidation,
and thus proceedings against the company become not est.
Furthermore, arguably, this order is in direct
conflict to Section 33(5) of IBC and Section 279 of Companies Act, 2013.
Section 33 (5) IBC, 2016 envisages that in case of liquidation order is passed,
no suit or proceeding shall be instituted against or by a corporate debtor
whereas Section 279 CA, 2013 which states that
when a winding-up order is passed, no suits or other legal proceedings
shall be instituted against the concerned company. Under IBC, an only liquidator
with the prior approval shall institute suit against the corporate debtor, not
any other creditor.[2]
In Murgan Oil Industries (P.) Ltd. Re,[3]
the word “suit” or “proceedings” not restricted to any class of creditors, or
plaintiff and, it is wide enough to encompass all to cover all suits and other
legal proceedings who-ever may be plaintiffs.
It is imperative that SEBI has also held that ‘adjudication
proceedings’ are within the purview of ‘other legal proceedings’
under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.[4] Thus,
in no case, SEBI cannot institute or continue any suit or proceedings
against the corporate debtor. Contrastingly, under Section 279 of the
Companies Act leverages institution or continuation of suits or proceeding with
the prior approval of the tribunal. Therefore, the whole purpose of IBC – to
prevent the multiplicity of suits in the multiple forums – is questioned by
this order.
It is to reiterate or reaffirm that, once the court
has taken the assets of a company under its control or has passed an order for
its being wound up, it will not be proper to allow proceedings to be started or
continued against the company.[5]
Thus, the regulatory proceedings by the various regulators would not only
hamper the liquidation process but would intrinsically vitiate corporate
structure in the market.
Conclusion
In the light of above, the appropriate approval under
the Companies act must have taken by SEBI and therefore, it’s profusely against
the spirit of the existing laws. This has again posed a serious question on ‘AO
power to conduct adjudication proceedings. The regulators have been bestowed
power which must be used cautiously and with all due regard to existing norms.
Nice post it is really interesting. Winding up of a company or liquidation of company or voluntary winding up a company is the process of bringing a business to an end and distributing its assets to claimants. Vakilsearch offers the most reliable & tailor-made legal and compliance solutions. Contact us for free consultation any time.
ReplyDelete