English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

IBC Amendment Bill 2018 passed, puts home buyers at par with creditors

Published

on

IBC Amendment Bill 2018 passed, puts home buyers at par with creditors

The Lok Sabha on Wednesday, August 1, passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Bill 2018.

The Bill amends the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to clarify that allottees under a real estate project should be treated as financial creditors. This aims to provide relief to home buyers who, as financial creditors, will be able to decide the future of defaulting builders alongside their lenders.

The voting threshold for routine decisions taken by the committee of creditors has been reduced from 75 per cent to 51 per cent.

For certain key decisions, this threshold has been reduced to 66 per cent. This makes it easier for banks to agree on salvaging a failed firm from being wound up by lowering the votes needed for taking critical decisions to 66% from 75%, reported Live Mint.

The Bill also allows the withdrawal of a resolution application submitted to the National Company Law Tribunal under the Code.  This decision can be taken with the approval of 90 per cent of the committee of creditors.

The demand from the main opposition party, the Congress, to refer the proposed amendments to a parliamentary panel was not accepted.

Interim finance minister Piyush Goyal, who moved the Bill, said the financial creditor status would help home buyers protect their hard earned savings and that the changes in voting requirements were based on global best practices.

“We looked at global best practices. In the UK, for example, a resolution plan is accepted if 51% of lenders agree. The government decided that some provisions need concessions so that more stressed assets get resolved,” the minister said.

Congress members, however, alleged that lowering the votes needed to clear corporate revival plans to 66% would benefit investors who could buy stressed assets for a song. Congress MP M Veerappa Moily demanded that the bill be referred to a parliamentary panel for review, while P Venugopal of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) said it did not specify whether home buyers would be treated as secured creditors.

In his reply to the discussion on the Bill, Goyal said liquidation of companies was the last option and that the intention of the law is to save enterprises wherever possible considering the need for saving jobs.

“Whether home buyers are secured or unsecured creditors will be decided on a case to case basis by the resolution professional and the courts,” said Goyal. The minister also said there was no plan to denationalize any public sector bank.

Opposition alleges move to benefit Reliance

Leader of the Congress Mallikarjun Kharge and several others alleged that the ordinance was brought to facilitate the acquisition of Alok Industries by Reliance Industries.

“People want the government to respond immediately and that is what is appreciated,” he said, adding “we want resolution and not liquidation” of ailing companies.

Kharge alleged that the ordinance was brought by the government to help the Reliance Industries to acquire Alok Industries.

“You brought this ordinance in haste. You do not respond with such alacrity during floods. The minister’s reply is not proper. We protest and walk out,” he said while leading the walkout.

Earlier, several opposition members demanded that the bill may be referred to a Standing Committee.

Participating in the debate on the measure, Congress member Veerappa Moily said the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had become “an instrument for siphoning off funds” of the treasury as banks were taking huge haircuts and corporates were buying out insolvent companies for paltry sums.

“Be fair and refer the bill to the Standing Committee. Because you got stuck up in the NCLT, you brought in the bill. The Ordinance is tainted and sending it to the Standing Committee will remove the taint,” he said, adding that the “greed” behind bringing the bill is to “loot the banks”.

Moily, a former Corporate Affairs Minister, said if the bill was referred to the Standing Committee, then it would submit its report within 15 days. Moily is now the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance.

N K Premachandran (RSP) said the promulgation of the IBC (Amendment) Ordinance was a “clear case of crony capitalism”, saying it intended to benefit a particulate industrial house.

“Alok Industries owed Rs 300 crores to banks, Reliance Industries bought it in Rs 50 billion, banks loss was Rs 250 billion,” he asserted, while alleging that undue haste was shown by the government in bringing the bill.

Questioning the government’s urgency in bringing the IBC Ordinance when the Monsoon Session was just a month away, P Venugopal (AIADMK) said a perception was being built that the government has brought in the amendment bill to facilitate one corporate house.

“The IBC is being amended in haste to allow Reliance Industries to take over Alok Industries…. In the name of NPA clean-up, the government should not be seen as supporting crony capitalism,” Venugopal said.

Saugata Ray (TMC) said the government was leading the country to a ‘blind alley’ and the IBC should not be seen as a panacea for all illness.

“Mr Goyal, our caretaker Finance Minister, we can’t see the banking sector collapse… I support the Congress demand of referring the bill to the Standing Committee,” Ray said.

He said under the resolution process, banks were taking huge haircuts and the IBC is leading to “crony capitalism”.

Citing the resolution process of the Alok Industries, Ray said the Reliance Industries could not acquire the company at the first instance since the resolution plan got less than the required 75 per cent vote.

“The IBC amendment bill brought by the government lowers the minimum vote requirement for passing the resolution to 66 per cent from 75 per cent in the original act. Just for 66 per cent vote, you can acquire a company. Just for Reliance Industries, Government has brought an Ordinance,” Ray said.

The TMC member said in case of Bhushan Steel takeover by Tata Steel, the banks had taken 40 per cent haircut and lost Rs 210 billion. In case of Vedanta buying Electrosteel, the haircut was 60 per cent and the banks lost Rs 84 billion.

As regards Alok Industries, banks have taken 83 per cent haircut and the loss is to the tune of Rs 250 billion, he claimed in the House.

The other members who participated in the debate included Subhash Baheria (BJP), P S Chandumajra (SAD), J P Narayan (RJD) and Dushyant Chaoutala (INLD).

India News

PM Modi urges people to read Tirukkural on Thiruvalluvar Day

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thiruvalluvar Day appealed to people to read the Tirukkural, calling it a reflection of the humane and harmonious ideals of Tamil philosopher-poet Thiruvalluvar.

Published

on

pm modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday urged people across the country to read the Tirukkural, highlighting its enduring relevance and the intellectual legacy of Tamil philosopher-poet Thiruvalluvar.

Marking Thiruvalluvar Day, which coincides with the Pongal celebrations every year, the prime minister paid tribute to the revered scholar, describing him as a symbol of harmony, compassion and Tamil cultural excellence.

In a message shared on social media platform X, Modi said Thiruvalluvar’s works and ideals continue to inspire countless people even today. He noted that the philosopher envisioned a society rooted in compassion and balance.

The prime minister encouraged citizens to engage with the Tirukkural, a classical Tamil text that deals with various aspects of human life, ethics and governance, calling it a window into the profound intellect of Thiruvalluvar.

Thiruvalluvar Day is observed annually to honour the philosopher-poet, whose literary contributions remain central to Tamil culture and thought.

Continue Reading

India News

BJP, Thackerays or Pawars: Maharashtra civic body poll results awaited today

Counting of votes for 29 municipal corporations in Maharashtra, including the key BMC and Pune civic bodies, begins today, with BJP, Thackerays and Pawars awaiting crucial results.

Published

on

The political balance in Maharashtra’s urban centres will become clearer today as votes are counted for elections to 29 municipal corporations across the state. The results are keenly awaited amid high-stakes contests involving the BJP, the Thackeray cousins and the reunited Pawar factions.

Polling was held for 2,869 seats across 893 wards, with 3.48 crore eligible voters deciding the fate of 15,931 candidates. Counting is scheduled to begin at 10 am.

Mumbai and Pune in sharp focus

All eyes are on Mumbai, where the contest for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has drawn statewide attention. Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray joined hands after more than two decades in a bid to reclaim control of the country’s richest civic body.

The BMC, which has an annual budget of over Rs 74,400 crore, went to polls after a nine-year gap, following a four-year delay. A total of 1,700 candidates contested the 227 seats.

Exit polls suggest a strong performance by the BJP–Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) alliance in Mumbai. An aggregate of multiple surveys projects the ruling alliance ahead, with the Shiv Sena (UBT) and allies trailing, while the Congress is expected to secure a limited number of seats. Exit polls have also indicated possible voting consolidation among Maratha and Muslim voters behind the Thackeray-led alliance, while women and young voters may tilt towards the BJP.

The last BMC election in 2017 saw the undivided Shiv Sena retain control of the civic body it had dominated for decades.

In Pune, the spotlight is on the unusual alliance between rival NCP factions led by Ajit Pawar and Sharad Pawar. Exit polls indicate the BJP could emerge as the largest party in the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), with both NCP factions and the Shiv Sena also expected to secure a share of seats.

Statewide counting underway

Apart from Mumbai and Pune, counting will take place in several other key municipal corporations, including Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivli, Nagpur, Nashik, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar, Solapur, Kolhapur, Amravati, Akola, Jalgaon, Malegaon, Latur, Dhule, Jalna, Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad, Nanded-Waghala, Chandrapur, Parbhani, Panvel, Bhiwandi-Nizampur, Ulhasnagar, Ahilyanagar and Ichalkaranji.

With major parties treating these civic polls as a referendum on their urban appeal ahead of future state and national elections, today’s results are expected to shape Maharashtra’s political narrative in the months to come.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court flags risk of lawlessness, pauses FIRs against ED officers in Bengal case

The Supreme Court paused FIRs against ED officers in the Bengal I-PAC raid case, warning that obstruction of central probes could lead to lawlessness and seeking responses from the Centre and state.

Published

on

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a sharp rebuke to the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government, pausing FIRs lodged against officers of the Enforcement Directorate over searches linked to political consultancy I-PAC. The court said the case raises serious questions about interference in investigations and warned that failure to address them could lead to “lawlessness”.

A bench of Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi sought replies from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel and Training, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress government on the ED’s plea. The central agency has also sought the suspension of Bengal Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar and Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, and a probe by the CBI. The matter will be heard next on February 3.

The ruling follows a standoff between the ED and the Bengal government after the agency conducted searches at premises linked to I-PAC, which manages election campaigns for the Trinamool Congress, in connection with a corruption case.

Court questions obstruction of central probes

Recording its prima facie view, the Supreme Court said the petition raised a “serious issue” concerning investigations by central agencies and possible obstruction by state authorities.

“There are larger questions which emerge and if not answered shall lead to lawlessness. If central agencies are working bona fide to probe a serious offence, a question arises: Can they be obstructed by party activities?” the bench observed.

Earlier in the day, the court also expressed disturbance over scenes of chaos in the Calcutta High Court during a hearing related to the same dispute.

ED alleges interference, seeks action against top cops

The Enforcement Directorate accused the West Bengal administration of interfering with its searches and investigation. Appearing for the agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that evidence was removed from the residence of an I-PAC co-founder and argued that such actions could encourage state police officers to aid and abet obstruction. He sought suspension of senior police officials.

Describing the disruption in the Calcutta High Court on January 9, Mehta called it “mobocracy”, saying a group of lawyers unconnected to the case disrupted proceedings, forcing an adjournment. The bench asked whether the high court had been turned into a protest site, to which Mehta responded that messages had circulated calling lawyers to gather at a specific time.

Banerjee’s counsel defends move, cites election confidentiality

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, questioned the timing of the ED’s presence in Bengal ahead of Assembly elections. He said the last development in the coal scam case dated back to February 2024 and argued that I-PAC handled election-related work under a formal contract with the Trinamool Congress.

According to Sibal, election data stored at the premises was confidential and critical to campaign strategy. He said the party leadership had a right to protect such information.

Representing the Bengal government and the DGP, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi referred to the January 9 disruption but argued it could not justify parallel proceedings in different courts. The bench responded that emotions “cannot go out of hand repeatedly”.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com