&w=3840&q=100)
IBBI calls for discussions in CoC meeting on 29A eligibility under IBC
In a discussion paper released on Wednesday, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has proposed that all prospective resolution applicants submit a statement of beneficial-ownership.
The idea behind the proposed changes to IBC regulations is to bring more transparency and procedural fairness to corporate insolvency resolution.
The IBBI has also proposed online invitation and submission of resolution plans.
The Supreme Court's two-judge bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in its May 2 order in the BPSL matter had come down heavily on the CoC and the resolution professional (RP). It said that the RP had 'utterly failed' to discharge statutory duties and the CoC failed to exercise its commercial wisdom while approving the resolution plan of JSW.
'While the order may have been repealed, we went through the SC's observations to try to make the processes under IBC more robust,' a senior official told Business Standard.
'Parliamentary committees and expert groups have underscored the urgent need for robust digital infrastructure to promote procedural fairness, transparency, and confidentiality in the insolvency process,' the discussion paper highlighted.
The IBBI proposal now requires the CoC to formally discuss and record its deliberation on section 29A eligibility of the resolution applicant. This section sets out ineligibility criteria for resolution applicants under IBC, barring wilful defaulters, undischarged insolvent person, related party, such as personal guarantor among others from taking part in the resolution process.
IBBI said that this would help CoC members to engage more deeply in the due diligence process, reduce potential litigation on eligibility-related issues under section 29A and enhance transparency.
The regulator has also suggested that the resolution applicants submit an affidavit stating whether they are eligible for the benefit of section 32A, which provides immunity to the corporate debtor and its property from prosecution for offences committed prior to commencement of the CIRP. This has been proposed, IBBI said, to uphold the integrity of the process and prevent any potential abuse.
'The benefit of the clean slate principle under the IBC can only be availed if the conditions laid down in section 32A are stringently fulfilled,' the IBBI discussion paper said.
On similar lines, as the online auction platform for liquidation process under IBC, which is effective from April 1, 2025, IBBI has proposed digitising the broader resolution process online, such as invitation and submission of resolution plans.
The 10th Report of the Standing Committee on Finance on 'Demands for Grants of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA)' had recommended implementation of a direct submission system for resolution plans through a central online portal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
HC: Land pooling policy may hit fertile land & social milieu, notified in haste
1 2 Chandigarh: While staying Punjab's Land Pooling Policy 2025, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that the land sought to be acquired is among the most fertile in the state, and it is possible that "it may impact the social milieu. " In its order released on Saturday, the HC stated that the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, bars the acquisition of multi-cropped land, and such acquisition is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. The court was also of the view that no timelines have been prescribed, nor has any mechanism been provided to address the grievances of the affected persons. "We are prima facie also of the view that the policy appears to have been notified in haste and all concerns, including social impact assessment, environmental impact assessment, timelines, and redressal grievance mechanism, should have been addressed at the very outset in the policy, before its notification," the HC observed while staying the policy until Sep 10. A division bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda passed these orders while hearing a petition filed by Gurdeep Singh, 72, a resident of Ludhiana district. He sought directions to quash the notification dated June 4, 2025, along with the Land Pooling Policy 2025, being ultra vires and an act of colourable legislation, violating fundamental rights. Speaking for the bench, Justice Grewal observed that the state proposes to take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land in the entire Punjab for carrying out its proposed development work, without conducting any Social Impact Assessment or Environmental Impact Assessment study. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Best-Paying Degrees of 2025 Are Not What You Think Best Paying Degrees | Search Ads Learn More Undo Although a stand is taken that the assessment would be carried out later when they have definite information about the number of landowners who have opted for the scheme, it has been held by the Supreme Court in several cases that before permitting urban development, the state ought to carry out an environmental impact assessment. The judge also observed that payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the landowners, but there is no provision for the rehabilitation of those landless labourers, artisans, and others who are dependent on the land. "It has also been submitted before this Court that the state's statutory bodies shall themselves develop the land, but no budgetary provisions appear to have been made, nor has anything been put forth before this Court to indicate that the state has adequate resources to finance the development project under the policy," the HC observed. In its nine-page order, the bench also mentioned that the court has come across several instances wherein the owners surrendered their land to the state development authority under the earlier land pooling policy, but the developed plots have not been allotted even after 10 years. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Raksha Bandhan wishes , messages and quotes !
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Electricity, a ‘public good', must not be vulnerable to ‘undue political posturing', says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has expressed a lack of confidence on whether Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) are living up to the independence and autonomy afforded to them under the law. ERCs have the exclusive authority of tariff determination, play a pivotal role in the promotion of competition, and in ensuring reliable power supply across the country. The court said electricity is a 'public good' and a 'material resource', and is especially vulnerable to 'undue political posturing'. The ERCs were meant to serve as a bastion under the Electricity Act of 2003 to ensure that electricity was sold and distributed for the common good, unruffled by the politics of the day, and uninfluenced by the market forces of demand and supply. In an 82-page judgment, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta has, however, questioned the very 'functional autonomy' of the ERCs, while drawing attention to the 'manage and manoeuvre' tactics employed to arrive at tariffs by creating regulatory assets 'over and above all permissible limits' prescribed by the electricity laws. A regulatory asset is adopted as a measure by the Regulatory Commissions when the gap between the revenue required by a power distribution company to meet its costs and expenditure, and the actual revenue realised through immediate tariff, is so high that it would not only prejudice the consumer but lead to what is called a 'tariff shock'. The court noted that, in recent times, ERCs have allowed power distribution companies' regulatory assets to balloon for decades without liquidating them, much to the detriment of the public, who have to bear the ultimate burden of paying more for electricity. This is despite the emphasis in the Electricity Act that the tariff fixed by ERCs must progressively reflect the cost of supply of electricity, and reduce cross subsidies. 'This is where the problem lies. Though the Electricity Act envisages functional autonomy for Regulatory Commissions, and the statutory scheme is complete in all respects, the decisions taken by the Commissions, many a time, have not inspired confidence of independence and autonomy. The reasons are not difficult to conceive as there is an issue about the appointment process. The assertion of independence, however, comes through individual volition and that is where the mandate of transparency leads to accountability,' Justice Narasimha, who authored the judgment, pointed out. The Act requires ERCs to work in cohesion with the State to ensure the supply of affordable power to all sections of society, across regions and terrains. 'But the adverse effect of an overbearing regulatory asset extended beyond proportion is an anathema to good governance of the Electricity Act… The regulatory asset cannot be permitted to balloon into such proportions or continue for such periods, year after year, that the governance of the sector is set in peril, affecting the rights of the utilities and at the same time jeopardising the consumer interest, who eventually end up bearing the burden,' the court noted. Issuing a series of directions, the apex court ordered that regulatory assets must not exceed the reasonable percentage as envisaged in the Electricity Rules. Existing regulatory assets must be liquidated in a maximum of seven years from April 1, 2024, and those created in future must be liquidated in three years from April 1, 2024. The court directed ERCs to provide the roadmap for liquidation of regulatory assets in future, and also undertake a strict and intensive audit of the circumstances in which distribution companies have continued without recovery of their regulatory assets.
India.com
6 hours ago
- India.com
BIG win for Anil Ambani as SC allows Reliance Infra to recover Rs 284830000000 for...
Anil Ambani (File) In a major boost for embattled industrialist Anil Ambani, the Supreme Court has allowed BSES Yamuna Power Ltd and BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd — two subsidiaries of Anil Ambani-led Reliance Infrastructure– to recover power dues worth Rs 28,483 crore. In a regulatory filing on Friday, Reliance Infra said that BSES Yamuna Power Ltd and BSES Rajdhani Power are owed Rs 28,483 crore in total dues, as on July 31, 2025. How much is Reliance Infra owed? The Anil Ambani-led company said its subsidiaries will 'recover Rs 28,483 crore of regulatory assets over a period of 4 years starting retrospectively from April 1, 2024', following a Supreme Court order that has set guidelines for the recovery of regulatory assets. Reliance Infrastructure, arguably the most profitable arm of Anil Ambani's Reliance Group, owns a 51 percent stake in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd and BSES Rajdhani Power, while the remaining 49 percent stake is owned by the Delhi government. The two power distribution companies (discoms) supply electricity to about 53 lakh household in the national capital. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court directed that the regulatory assets, including carrying costs to the tune of Rs 27,200.37 crore, to be paid within three years to Delhi's three private discoms. What are regulatory assets? Regulatory assets, which are essentially deferred revenue gaps to be recovered in future tariffs, have risen sharply for Delhi, reaching Rs 12,993.53 crore for BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, Rs 8,419.14 crore for BSES Yamuna Power Ltd and Rs 5,787.70 crore for Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd as on March 31, 2024, totalling Rs 27,200.37 crore. Reliance Infra said its power discoms had filed a writ petition and civil appeals in 2014 before the Supreme Court, raising the issue of 'non-cost reflective tariff, unlawful creation of regulatory asset and non-liquidation of regulatory asset'. The petitions were were heard at length by the Supreme Court, and after hearing all parties, including the state governments and state electricity regulatory commissions., the apex court ordered that Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) must provide the roadmap for liquidation of existing regulatory assets, which will include provisions for dealing with carrying costs, the company said. ERCs must also undertake a strict and intensive audit of the circumstances in which the Discoms have continued without recovery of Regulatory Assets, the order said.
