Resolution Applicants: Qualifications & Disqualifications
![handle is hein.journals/ijlmhs18 and id is 775 raw text is: International Journal of Law Management & Humanities
Resolution Applicants: Qualifications &
Disqualifications
ANAND ABHISHEKI
ABSTRACT
Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which was added to the IBC by
the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2017, provides a list of disqualifications criteria for Resolution
Applicants from submitting a Resolution Plan during Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process. There was a second amendment in 2018. The Aim of enacting Section 29A was to
prevent those who would have a negative impact on the overall corporate resolution
process from submitting a resolution plan, but this section imposes four tiers of ineligibility.
This multi-tiered disqualification under Section 29A may prevent bona fide resolution
applicants from applying, as well as key stakeholders from bidding for the company's
revival. As a result, despite its noble goal, section 29A is a severe section that continues to
be problematic. The ineligibility criteria under section 29A have cast a net so wide that
even those persons who wish to positively contribute towards the revival of the corporate
debtor have been barred from submitting their resolution plans. The Supreme Court has
played an instrumental role in analysing the provisions and thereby clearing ambiguities
from the interpretation of the provisions of section 29A through its various judgements.
This article attempts to analyze the Qualifications & Disqualifications of Resolution
Applicants.
Keywords: Resolution Applicants, Resolution plan, Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process, Section 29A of IBC, Resolution Professionals.
I. INTRODUCTION
A list of people who cannot be a resolution applicant is provided in Section 29A of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). Persons who contributed to the corporate
debtor's defaults through their wrongdoing or who are otherwise undesirable are prohibited
from acquiring or regaining control of the corporate debtor under this provision.2 The Supreme
Court in Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta3 interpreted the scope and
application of Section 29A to make it free from any ambiguities. Further, the constitutional
' Author is a LL.M Student at Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur, M.P, India.
2 Statement of Objects and Reasons of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2017. & Arcelormittal
India Private vs Satish Kumar Gupta (2018) Para 25
3 Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1733.
© 2022. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]
774
[Vol. 5 Iss 4; 774]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs18&div=67&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Resolution Applicants: Qualifications & Disqualifications
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most