Insolvency Proceedings - The Legal Chamber

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC

13Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC

The Supreme Court held that Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) represent an equity investment, not a financial debt under the IBC. Preference shareholders are not creditors, and redemption is contingent upon company profits under the Companies Act. Therefore, they cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for non-redemption. Facts Of The Case: EPC Constructions India Limited (EPCC) held outstanding receivables from Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited for construction work. In 2015, to help Matix meet lender-mandated debt-equity ratios, the parties agreed to convert ₹400 crores of dues into 8% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS). Matix subsequently allotted CRPS worth ₹250 crores to EPCC. When the shares matured after three years, M...

Fabricated Documents Can’t Validate a Sale, Rules Supreme Court in Insolvency Case

The Supreme Court held that for a sale by an Official Receiver to be protected under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 upon annulment, the underlying transaction must be valid and attain finality. A transfer based on a fundamentally flawed and fabricated agreement is not a "duly made" disposition and does not survive the annulment of insolvency, requiring the property to revert to the debtor. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partnership firm, M/s Gavisiddheshwara & Co. Following the death of partner Singamasetty Subbarayudu, his son (the appellant) was inducted. Due to family indebtedness, the appellant was alleged to have offered his inherited one-anna share for sale via a letter. Respondent Allam Karibasappa claimed to have accepted this offer, assertin...

Verified Claim is Key: Supreme Court Distinguishes Between Timely and Belated Homebuyers in Insolvency

The Supreme Court held that a homebuyer's claim, once verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional and reflected in the list of creditors, must be honoured as per the plan's provisions for verified claims. It cannot be relegated to a residuary clause meant for belated or unverified claims, as this would misapply the approved resolution plan. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, residents of Bengaluru, booked an apartment in 2010 in the 'IREO Rise (Gardenia)' project developed by M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited. They executed an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement in 2011 and paid Rs. 57,56,684 out of the total consideration of Rs. 60,06,368. The Corporate Debtor failed to deliver possession by the agreed date of November 2013. The appellants initially filed a consumer complaint, which wa...