The Bar Council of India does not permit advertisement or solicitation by advocates in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.khaitanco.com, you acknowledge and confirm that you are seeking information relating to Khaitan & Co of your own accord and that there has been no form of solicitation, advertisement or inducement by Khaitan & Co or its members. The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement. No material/information provided on this website should be construed as legal advice. Khaitan & Co shall not be liable for consequences of any action taken by relying on the material/information provided on this website. The contents of this website are the intellectual property of Khaitan & Co.

Please accept the above


See all results for ""

Holder of a recovery certificate issued under RDB Act is a ‘Financial Creditor’ under Section 5(7) of IBC


Recently, by a judgment dated 30 May 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus A. Balakrishnan & Anr (Judgment dated 30 May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021) held that a recovery certificate issued the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1992 (RDB Act) would qualify as a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and give rise to a fresh cause of action under section 7 of the IBC. The judgment also approved an earlier decision of a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 543 which inter alia held that the a fresh period of limitation period would accrue for an application under Section 7 from the date of a recovery certificate; see Ergo Update here.


Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (KMBL), the Appellant was an assignee of certain loans in respect of which M/s Prasad Properties and Investments Private Limited, the Respondent No. 2 (Corporate Debtor) stood as guarantor.

Based on a compromise settlement dated 13 October 2006 entered between the Appellant and Corporate Debtor, the DRT issued recovery certificates dated 7 June 2017 and 20 October 2017 in favour of the Appellant.

Based on the recovery certificates, in 2018, the Appellant filed an application under section 7 of the IBC, which came to be admitted on 20 September 2019. The admission order was challenged before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which by an order dated 24 November 2020 set aside the admission order by holding that the application under section 7 is time-barred and that the issuance of a recovery certificate would not give rise to a fresh period of limitation.



Submissions of KMBL (Appellant):

The application under section 7 of the IBC was filed by the Appellant well within the period of three years from the date on which the recovery certificates were issued and therefore within limitation.  In view of the decision in Dena Bank (supra), it is settled a fresh period of limitation is available from the date of the recovery certificate.


Submissions of Respondents:



The cause of action in respect of the debt has merged into the DRT’s orders issuing the recovery certificates and therefore, a second proceeding on the same cause of action would be prohibited by the doctrine of res judicata.



In view of 19 (22A) of the RDB Act which states that a recovery certificate shall be a deemed decree for the purpose of initiation of inter alia winding up proceedings under the Companies Act 2013, IBC proceedings cannot be filed pursuant to a recovery certificate.



The judgment in Dena Bank (supra) is per incuriam, ie rendered without considering the correct position of law as it does not correctly consider sections 19 (22) and 19 (22A) of the RDB Act, as well as sections 5(7), 5(8), 6 and 14(1)(a) of IBC.



The judgment in Dena Bank (supra) is also contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jignesh Shah and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr, (2019) 10 SCC 750 wherein the initiation of CIRP was held to be barred by limitation despite pending recovery proceedings, and Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr, (2019) 10 SCC 572 wherein also the application under section 7 of IBC was held to be barred due to limitation.



Recovery certificate is a “financial debt” within the meaning Section 5 (8) of IBC

An application under section 7 of the IBC may be filed in respect of a default as defined under section 3 (12) of IBC to mean non-payment of a debt. Section 3 (11) of the IBC defines “debt” as a “liability in respect of a claim, and section 3(6) of the IBC defines term “claim” to mean a right to payment, whether or not such right has been reduced to judgment. Therefore, if the submission on behalf of the Corporate Debtor is accepted, it would mean that a claim is excluded from being a financial debt even if reduced to judgment by way of a recovery certificate.

The list of arrangements that would qualify to be financial debt as mentioned in section 5(8) of the IBC is not exhaustive, and it could not have been the legislative intent to exclude a liability for a claim that is due and payable in terms of a recovery certificate. Therefore, any person holding such recovery certificate is well within the scope of a financial creditor under Section 5(7) of IBC.


Judgment rendered in the case of Dena Bank (supra) is correct in law:

The decision in Dena Bank (supra) does not violate section 14 (1)(a) of the IBC, which only operates to prohibit a decree-holder from executing the decree against a corporate debtor undergoing CIRP.

Insofar as the judgments in Jignesh Shah (supra) and Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave (supra), the Supreme Court observed that question as to whether a recovery certificate would give rise to a fresh period of limitation was not under consideration in either decision.


Sections 19 (22) and 19 (22A) of the RDB Act do not restrict initiation of CIRP based on a recovery certificate

The Supreme Court held that if the contention on behalf of the Corporate Debtor is accepted, it would render the very purpose of Section 19 (22A) of the RDB Act otiose. It was further observed that the language of Section 19 (22A) of the RDB Act does not suggest that it is limited to initiating winding up proceedings only.


The judgment not only affirms the position on limitation and recovery certificates laid down in Dena Bank (supra) but goes a step further to hold that a recovery certificate issued under the RDB Act is itself an independent liability of financial debt in respect of which a fresh cause of action to file an application under Section 7 of the IBC arises.

This strengthens the position of eligible creditors under the RDB Act to claim as financial creditors and initiate proceedings under IBC even if the period of limitation from the date of original default has expired so long as they have initiated DRT proceedings in time and pursue it to get the adjudication of their claim along with issuance of recovery certificate by the DRT.

-     Kumar Saurabh Singh (Partner), Vishnu Shriram (Principal Associate), Shivani Chaturvedi (Associate)

For any queries please contact: editors@khaitanco.com

Kumar Saurabh Singh (partners)

We have updated our Privacy Policy, which provides details of how we process your personal data and apply security measures. We will continue to communicate with you based on the information available with us. You may choose to unsubscribe from our communications at any time by clicking here.

For private circulation only

The contents of this email are for informational purposes only and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. The views expressed are not the professional views of Khaitan & Co and do not constitute legal advice. The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. Khaitan & Co disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident or any other cause.

© 2021 Khaitan & Co. All rights reserved.


One Forbes
3rd & 4th Floors, No. 1
Dr. V. B. Gandhi Marg
Fort, Mumbai 400 001


119/65, First Floor
Dr Radhakrishnan Salai
Chennai 600 004,


Max Towers
7th & 8th Floors
Sector 16B, Noida
Gautam Buddh Nagar
201 301 India


Ocean Financial Centre
#37-02 10 Collyer
37th Floor Quay
Raffles Place 049315,