ARE SUBSIDARIES INCLUDED AS ASSETS OF THE PARENT COMPANY DURING INSOLVENCY.

Once a company goes into insolvency, the Resolution Professional (RP) is mandated to take over all the assets of the Corporate Debtor thereto but the IBC code imposes some statutory restrictions to the term 'assets' stipulated under section 18 of the IBC code (herein after the code)

Do subsidiaries come under the purview of insolvency of the parent shareholding company?

It is a settled law that a subsidiary is a separate legal entity from its parent company as laid down by the celebrated english precedent in Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22. This foundational doctrine of a separate corporate personality has been consistently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, most notably in the landmark case of Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613, which has clarified that even a wholly-owned subsidiary does not lose its distinct identity and that its assets belong to it, not to its parent shareholder. 

The statutory provision of the IBC also restricts the assets of the subsidiary to be included with the parent company. Section 18 of the code imposes a duty on the RP to take custody of the corporate debtor’s assets by clarifying that the term “assets” shall not include the assets of any Indian or foreign subsidiary, and similarly, Section 36(4)(d) reinforces this firewall by expressly excluding the assets of any subsidiary from the ‘liquidation estate’ of the parent company, making them unavailable for recovery in the parent’s liquidation. 

A recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme court in BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. vs Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Anr., 2024 INSC 548  has cleared the air with respect to this issues and has observed that the “A holding company and its subsidiary are always distinct legal entities. The holding company would own shares of the subsidiary company. That does not make the holding company the owner of the subsidiary's assets. ... Therefore, the assets of the subsidiary company of the corporate debtor cannot be part of the resolution plan of the corporate debtor.”

The Hon'ble NCLAT, Delhi in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) vs. Roma Unicon Designex Consortium in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 180 of 2022 has also reiterated and opined that the "the assets of the Corporate Debtor and assets of subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor have been separately recognised and dealt with. Section 18, sub-section (1), Explanation further clarifies the law when it says that assets shall include the assets, meaning thereby assets of the Corporate Debtor, shall not include assets of any Indian subsidiary. In the CIRP of Corporate Debtor, thus, assets of subsidiary Company were not to be taken into consideration or treated as the assets of the Corporate Debtor.....the law is concerned with assets of the Corporate Debtor and its liabilities, so as to focus the resolution on the assets of the Corporate Debtor. The natural corollary to the above provision is that the assets of the subsidiary Company cannot be dealt with, in CIRP of a holding Company. Holding Company and subsidiary Company have separate legal status and the assets of subsidiary Company cannot be taken into consideration."

Thus, in light of the statutory restrictions provided in the IBC code and also the precedents laid forewith, a subsidiary is barred from being included in the insolvency process of its parent company.



Greetings, I am a young legal professional and a proud Gorkha who’s eager as a morning bird, loves poetry and drama, listens to the Floyd and the Beatles, admires the court craft and is passionate about the little things that adds immense value.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE PRACTICE OF EXHIBITION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE INDIAN LAW.

Exhibition of a document in judicial proceedings is a standard customary practice that has been followed for a long period of time. There isn’t any specific provision under the law that governs the  expression ‘ exhibit ’   or ‘marking’ of documents. There are only certain rules laid down in the Delhi High Court (original side) rules with regard to the mandatory marking of the document with exhibit or labeling of every document produced during trial. PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS. Order 13 Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates rules for admission or rejection of documents. The same read as follows: Rule 3   - Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents. ― The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection. Rule 4  -  Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence. ― (1) Subject to the provisions of the next foll...
Read more

A GREATER IMMUNITY TO JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENT

This is a guest post contributed by Mr. Rajat Joshi, Advocate. The views expressed are completely personal without the intent to harm anyone or the institution. Does the constitution protect this nation's judges from being removed o r has the executive turned a blind eye to the increasing immorality of  sitting judges who have sworn to protect and uphold the integrity of the constitution of this great country. Recently,  A speech delivered by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court   on December 8, 2024  garnered massive controversy and made national headline. The sitting judge had publicly expressed  his bias nes s against the Muslim Community at an event organized by the legal cell of the   Vishwa Hindu Parishad within the Court Premises , T h is   again  highlighted  the judges  immunity  from  impeachment or removal from  the  office  of the  Indian Judicial System. Fifty-Five MPs of the ...
Read more

(ORDER XII RULE 6) JUDGEMENT ON ADMISSION ON THE BASIS OF ORAL ADMISSION MUST BE CLEAR, CATEGORICAL, UNAMBIGUOUS & UNCONDITIONAL.

  Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC stipulates that the court may at any stage of the proceeding can pass a Judgement on the basis of the Admission made by the party in the pleadings or otherwise orally or in writing. Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC reads thus: Judgment on admissions.— (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.  (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling provision that provides complete discretion to the court to pass a judgement on admission on the basis ...
Read more