Facts of the case: The applicant/ operational creditor in this case, Foseco India filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IB Code, 2016) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, i.e., Om Boseco Rail Products Limited for alleged default in payment of operational debt amounting to Rs. 90,00,919.10.
Issue Raised: Whether a notification under Section 4 of the IBC, 2016 which raises the minimum default limit will be applicable to the admission of the insolvency application filed under the Code?
Decision of the NCLT: The Honorable Adjudicating Authority held that a well settled principle of a statue (law) is presumed to be prospective (for the future) unless it is held to be retrospective (for the past) or by necessary mention/ implication under any law or Act. When the amendment to Section 4 of IBC was inserted, a proviso was also added regarding enhancing the pecuniary (monetary) jurisdiction for filing application as against a small and medium scale industries has not been in the notification mentioned that its application will be retrospective. Therefore, it appears to be Honorable NCLT, Kolkata Bench that the amendment to Section 4 IBC shall be mandatorily considered as prospective in nature and retrospective.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *