BY YADU KRISHNA PALLIKKARA, FOURTH-YEAR STUDENT AT SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE
Introduction
Recently, in Dr. Ravi Shankar Vedan vs. Tiffins Barytes Asbestos (Tiffins), the shareholder of a corporate debtor sought an appeal for two interlocutory orders of the adjudicating authority. First of which was an application seeking a forensic audit of the books of accounts of the corporate debtor and the second regarding approval of resolution application under Section 30 (6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Code). The court dismissed the shareholders’ objections and clarified that shareholders have no locus standi to challenge the resolution plan initiated against the corporate debtor.
The post aims to analyse the rationale employed by the court in denying locus standi to the shareholders. It offers a critique of the tribunal’s decision by first, expounding on the concept of shareholders as “persons aggrieved” under Section 61 of the Code . Second, it analyses the interpretation of Section 30(2) of the Code related to deemed approval and the existing legal position surrounding it. It concludes by advocating for a nuanced approach that protects shareholders’ legitimate concerns while maintaining the effectiveness of the insolvency resolution framework.
Shareholder as a person aggrieved
Herein, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that the shareholders have no locus standito challenge the resolution plan at any stage, by reasoning that Section 30(2) of the Code provides for deemed approval by shareholders of the corporate debtors, which cannot be taken away by objecting to a resolution plan.
Similarly, in Nirej Vadakkedathu Paul & Ors v. Sunstar Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (McDowell Holdings), the NCLAT Chennai denied locus to shareholders who challenged the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against the corporate debtor in which they held majority shares. It forms a part of a catena of judgements, including ICP Investments v. Uppal Housing, Punit Garg vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., and Anant Kajare vs. Eknath Aher, denying locus standi to shareholders in CIRP proceedings by reasoning that shareholders cannot be aggrieved by initiating CIRP against the corporate debtor, as such interventions in the name of derivative action can render the entire process futile. Accordingly, the contesting parties can only be the financial creditor or the corporate debtor as represented by the Interim Resolution Professional.
These judgements seemed to altogether overlook the true intention of Section 61 (1) and Section 61 (3) of the Code . While Section 61 (1) provides for “any person aggrieved” by an order of the Adjudicating Authority to prefer an appeal to the NCLAT, Section 61 (3) provides the grounds under which such appeals can be set out, allowing for resolution plan to be challenged for the first time in the appellate stage. While it does specifically identify those who may file an appeal, it sets out that any person aggrieved under Section 61(1) can initiate a proceeding challenging a plan approval order, and shareholders shall come well under this meaning. On a combined reading of both provisions, it is in no way anticipated to exclude shareholders from the meaning of “aggrieved persons,” as that would be a clear injustice and in effect a narrowing of the scope of Section 60 (1).
While in McDowell Holdings, the shareholders were denied locus by citing a lack of statutory backing for shareholders ability to challenge a CIRP process and such frequent derivative actions being against the efficiency and purpose of the Code, the court in order to reach its decision had expounded Section 61 (1) of the code. It stated that under Section 61 (1) of the Code, any ‘person aggrieved’ by the order of the Adjudicating Authority may prefer an appeal to the “NCLAT”. The definition of ‘person’ as provided under Section 3(23) of the Code includes ‘individual’, which is a term wide enough to encapsulate ‘shareholders’ within it. This clarifies that while interference from shareholders are generally not preferred, the Code in no manner intends the deprivation of their representative capacity in insolvency proceedings as held in the case of Tiffin’s.
In Ashish Gupta v. Delagua Health India Private Limited, the court held that the majority shareholders of a company have the right to challenge the admission of CIRP against the corporate debtor when the admission arose out of collusion among the creditors. It is an example of when courts have considered the specific circumstances demanding intervention by the shareholders and dealt with the same on merits. It proves that shareholder intervention may not always be against the efficiency and purpose of a resolution process under the code and can help in identifying irregularities’ and illegalities in the resolution plan, aiding in the successful revival of the corporate debtor.
Also in Tiffins, by interpreting Regulation 2(k) of the Liquidation Regulations 2016, the court held that shareholders who come under the category of ‘stakeholders’ are only recognised in the liquidation process and lack representative capacity in the CIRP. But, according to the same logic, other stakeholders of the corporate debtor such as directors or creditors, can be denied representative capacity by categorizing them as “shareholders” and their consent deemed to be approved, which is totally unwarranted under the code.
Blurred lines of Deemed Approval and Locus Standi
Deemed approval of a resolution plan finds no backing in the Code. Under Section 30(2) of the Code, the Resolution Professional (RP) has to ensure that the resolution plan to be submitted meets certain requirements. Under clause (e) of the provision, the RP shall ensure that the plan submitted does not contravene any law in force. The explanation to it provides that the shareholder approval required under the Companies Act, 2013, or other relevant laws for the implementation of the resolution plan is deemed to have been given, provided it is valid and not in contravention of that Act or law.
Through Tiffin’s judgement, court has interpreted this explanation of clause (e) as a mechanism of ‘deemed approval’, allowing actions under the resolution plan requiring shareholder approval to have been automatically approved, and more importantly, holding that shareholders have no locus to challenge or object to it. Similar subscription to the deemed approval doctrine can be seen in cases including Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd., DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Abloom Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Airro Holdings v. Abhilash Lal, Mr. Keshav Agrawal Vs. Abhijit Guhathakurta where the courts have rooted their reasoning to the explanation of Section 30 (2) (e) of the Code.
The courts have overlooked the fact that the explanation was intended solely to facilitate actions that typically need shareholder approval under laws like the Companies Act, such as capital reductions or director appointments, without requiring specific approval for each. It wasn’t meant to cover the entire resolution plan but only those actions needing shareholder consent, and it cannot be used to oust the shareholder’s locus on all matters concerning the CIRP. The MCA notification of 2017 also clarified that the approval mechanism applies only to specific actions required for the implementation of a resolution plan as required under the Companies Act 2013 or any other law in force.
Shareholders should be allowed to voice concerns about other aspects of the plan, such as illegality, procedural irregularity, or actions harming the company or the public interest, which do not require shareholder approval. [AM7] The same has been clearly set out under Section 60 (5) (c) and Section 61 (3) of the Code, the former of which provides that the Adjudicating authority is empowered to hear any question of law or facts arising in relation to the insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor. The latter provides that any person aggrieved may appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority approving a resolution plan, in the circumstance it contravenes the provision of law or if there is material irregularity in the powers exercised by the resolution professional. The provisions can be seen to have been deployed by shareholders to resolve their concerns in various cases including Synergy Technologies vs Parthiv Parikh and Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder vs Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan.
Conclusion
In the landmark case of Swiss Ribbons v UOI, the Supreme Court had held that the Code is a beneficial legislation that is aimed at putting the company back on its feet rather than being mere recovery legislation for the creditors. Such an effort to recoup the company requires adequately tending to all the stakeholders involved, including the shareholders of the corporate debtor. While sources such as the Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee Report of 2015 hints that the Code aims at a complete reduction of share capital and the shifting of control to creditors, the mechanism of ‘deemed approval’ of the shareholders and depriving them of representative capacity is not envisaged under the code.
There is no contention as to the fact that the resolution plan is generally binding on the shareholders post-approval under Section 30(6) and that those shareholders challenging the plan for malicious and vindictive reasons shall not stand strict judicial scrutiny under Section 61(3) of the Code. However, there is no reasonable explanation to prohibit them from challenging the plan for bona fide reasons.
Such a blanket decision denying locus to shareholders on all and any matters of Code is unwarranted and can bring in uncertainty considering the concerns that the shareholders can face during a CIRP, including procedural irregularity or illegality in the resolution plan as seen in DHFL’s case or unfair treatment of shares of the company in the resolution plan as seen in Sintex Industries Case . SEBI had issued a consultation paper in November 2022 proposing protection to minority shareholders of companies undergoing resolution. If the position as laid out in the case of Tiffin’s is maintained, such protections shall be rendered redundant, putting shareholders in a vulnerable position. Given these circumstances, it is imperative that the code does not restrain shareholders from raising their grievances, and the courts may hear the instances and decide on the merits of the case and the degree and reason for such intervention. This will aid in balancing the interests of relevant stakeholders and help in an effective and successful revival of the company.
The HNLU CCLS Blog 
Leave a comment