oppn parties NCLAT Confirms: NBFCs Not Covered By IBC

News Snippets

  • Centre sanctions Rs 15000cr for Covid19 emergency response, part of it immediately and the rest over a period of four years in mission mode
  • RBI says Covid-19 has "drastically altered" the growth outlook in India
  • Third coronavirus death in the Dharavi slum in Mumbai
  • Odisha becomes the first state to extend the lockdown until April 30. Schools and colleges in the state to remain closed until June 17th
  • The Supreme Court orders all coronavirus testing, including by private labs, to be done for free, says will look into the matter of reimbursement for private players at a later date
  • Former Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Akhtar proposes an Indo-Pak ODI series to raise funds for fighting coronavirus
  • Maharashtra government says many Tablighi Jamaat members who attended the Markaz and returned have gone into hiding
  • West Bengal government identifies hotspots in Kolkata and the rest of the state, inclined to extend the lockdown in those places only
  • Prime Minister Modi holds a video conference with floor leaders of opposition parties, hints at extending the lockdown
  • UP seals hotspots and makes masks mandatory
  • Masks made compulsory in Mumbai, violators will be arrested
  • ICMR says an infected person can infect 406 people in 30 days without social distancing and lockdown
  • Stock markets make a smart recovery. Sensex up by record 2476 points on global cues
  • Schools, colleges and shopping malls likely to remain closed for a further period of one month, says empowered group of ministers
  • PM Modi tells BJP workers that India is in for a long battle against the coronavirus and there is no scope to feel tired or defeated
Total Covid-19 cases rise to 5734 on Thursday and the death toll stands at 166, says the health ministry in its daily briefing
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. Writes for a number of publications.

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.