oppn parties NCLAT Confirms: NBFCs Not Covered By IBC

News Snippets

  • Maratha quota bill likely to be tabled in Maharashtra assembly today
  • Arvind Kejriwal skips ED summons for the 6th time, says the case is in court and will follow court's decision
  • PM Modi says UP has gone from 'red tape' to 'red carpet' in 7 years of 'double engine' government
  • Farm unions reject government offers, to resume Delhi march from today
  • Centre says some Aadhar cards in Bengal 'deactivated' due to technical glitz, will be activated back soon
  • Supreme Court stays LS privilege panel summons to Bengal officials over BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar injury case
  • Supreme Court junks Sandeshkhali petition, says it cannot be compared to Manipur, asks petitioner to approach Calcutta HC
  • Supreme Court gets tough on Chandigarh mayoral elections, asks for ballot papers and video footage, does not order re-election
  • Government starts withdrawing old small tax demands, up to Rs 25000 per entry till FY 2009-10 and up to Rs 10000 per entry from FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15 with an overall ceiling of Rs 1 lakh per tax payer
  • Stocks remained positive on Monday: Sensex gained 281 points to 72708 and Nifty 81 points to 22122
  • Jasprit Bumrah likely to be rested for 4th Test while K L Rahul may be back
  • FIH Pro League hockey: India beat Spain 8-7 in shootout
  • SP leader Salim Sherwani, miffed at no Muslim candidate given RS ticket, quits party
  • Army going for big (Rs 57000cr) upgrade in combat vehicles to replace T-72 tanks
  • Mamata Banerjee says the BJP is doing nothing to resolve the Sandeshkhali dispute but instead fanning the fires to escalate it
History created in Supreme Court as Chandigarh mayoral poll ballots counted in court, judges declare AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar winner after taking into account the votes defaced by returning officer Anil Masih
oppn parties
NCLAT Confirms: NBFCs Not Covered By IBC

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

In the case HDFC Ltd. versus RHC Holding Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has confirmed the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that non-banking financial companies (NBFC) are out of the purview of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

A simple reading of section 3(7) of the IBC also confirms this. The section defines a corporate person as "a company as defined in clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013, a limited liability partnership, as defined in clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, or any other person incorporated with limited liability under any law for the time being in force but shall not include any financial service provider" (emphasis provided by us).

The main contention of the appellant, HDFC Ltd., was that the respondent company was not a financial service provider as according to it the intent and the purpose of the legislature is to specifically carve out a set of institutions that provide a set of identified financial services. But the respondent company countered by saying that it had an NBFC licence from the RBI and this met the condition of section 3(17) of the IBC. The respondent further referred to the NCLAT decision in the case Randhiraj Thakur Vs M/s Jindal Saxena Financial Services, wherein the appellate authority had held that the application filed by financial creditor under Section 7 of the I&B Code is not maintainable against a company which has been granted a Certificate of Registration under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 giving the status of a "Non-Banking Financial Company."

NCLAT said in its present order that it is not necessary for a financial service provider to accept deposits to pass muster under section 3(7) of the IBC. It said that section 3(16) of the IBC provides for an array of services and a company providing any one or more of them could be classified as a financial service provider under section 3(7) and hence it would be out of the purview of the IBC. It held that the respondent company met this criterion and was hence not covered under the IBC. It also observed that if the appellant felt that the respondent company had violated the terms of the licence granted to it by the RBI, it should approach the apex bank instead of the NCLAT.