In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has clarified the interplay between the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), particularly concerning the issuance of provisional seizure orders during the moratorium period under the IBC. The court held that any provisional seizure order under Section 37A of FEMA cannot be issued against a corporate debtor undergoing liquidation, as it contravenes the moratorium imposed under Section 33(5) of the IBC.
The case arose when the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) issued a provisional seizure order under Section 37A of FEMA against a company that was already under liquidation proceedings initiated under the IBC. The liquidator challenged this action, arguing that the seizure violated the moratorium provisions of the IBC, which are designed to maintain the status quo of the debtor's assets during the insolvency process.
The court examined the provisions of both statutes. Section 33(5) of the IBC explicitly states that no suit or legal proceeding shall be initiated against the corporate debtor once the liquidation order is passed, except with the permission of the adjudicating authority. This moratorium aims to prevent any depletion of the debtor's assets, ensuring an equitable distribution among creditors.
On the other hand, Section 37A of FEMA empowers the ED to seize assets suspected to be involved in contraventions of foreign exchange laws. However, the court noted that the exercise of this power must not infringe upon the moratorium imposed under the IBC. Allowing such seizures during the moratorium would undermine the objectives of the IBC and disrupt the orderly process of liquidation.
The court emphasized that the IBC, being a later and more specific legislation concerning insolvency and liquidation, would have an overriding effect in case of any inconsistency with other laws, including FEMA. This principle is enshrined in Section 238 of the IBC, which provides that the provisions of the IBC shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the ED's action of issuing a provisional seizure order under FEMA during the moratorium period was not legally sustainable. Such actions are prohibited under the IBC, and any proceedings or measures that could affect the assets of the corporate debtor must be suspended during the moratorium. The court, therefore, set aside the seizure order, reinforcing the primacy of the IBC in matters of insolvency and liquidation.
This ruling has significant implications for the enforcement of economic laws in India. It underscores the necessity for regulatory authorities to coordinate their actions with the insolvency framework established by the IBC. The judgment serves as a reminder that while agencies like the ED have broad powers to enforce compliance with financial laws, these powers must be exercised in a manner that does not conflict with the insolvency process and the protections it affords to corporate debtors and their stakeholders.
Furthermore, the decision highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of the insolvency process. By ensuring that the moratorium is respected, the court safeguards the interests of all creditors and promotes a fair and orderly resolution of the debtor's financial affairs. This approach aligns with the overarching goals of the IBC, which seeks to maximize the value of assets and facilitate the efficient resolution of insolvency cases.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court's judgment reinforces the supremacy of the IBC in insolvency matters and clarifies the limitations on the exercise of powers under other economic laws during the moratorium period. It serves as a guiding precedent for future cases where conflicts may arise between the IBC and other statutes, ensuring that the objectives of insolvency resolution are not compromised by parallel enforcement actions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.