Supreme Court affirms NCLAT's CoC order, sets deadline for disposal

The Supreme Court upheld the NCLAT's order allowing the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as deemed interlocutory. The request for a stay on CoC proceedings was denied, and the NCLAT was directed to conclusively decide the appeal on a specified date. The appellant's counsel was granted permission to file written submissions, and the respondents were directed to submit relevant case laws. The matter was listed for further orders, emphasizing the final disposal of the appeal within a specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against NCLAT order regarding constitution of CoC
- Stay on proceedings before CoC
- Final disposal of the appeal

Analysis:
1. Appeal against NCLAT order regarding constitution of CoC:
The appellant, a suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, filed an appeal before the NCLAT against the order of the NCLT admitting a petition under Section 7 of the IBC for alleged default of financial debt. The NCLAT had initially kept the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on hold after the submission by the Interim Resolution Professional that the CoC had not been constituted. However, upon later discovering that the CoC was already constituted, the interim order was vacated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the submissions, directed the NCLAT to decide the appeal finally on a specified date. The order dated 03.08.2021, which allowed the constitution of CoC, was not interfered with as it was deemed interlocutory in nature.

2. Stay on proceedings before CoC:
The appellant's counsel requested a stay on the proceedings before the CoC, citing the Corporate Debtor's longstanding reputation as a renowned newspaper. However, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the order dated 03.08.2021, which allowed the CoC to function. The Court directed the NCLAT to decide the appeal conclusively on the next hearing date.

3. Final disposal of the appeal:
During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel was absent, but the proxy counsel informed the Court about ongoing settlement discussions outside the Court, which was disputed by the respondents' counsel. The appellant's counsel was granted permission to file written submissions, with a deadline set for submission. The respondents were also directed to file relevant case laws. The matter was listed for further orders on a specified date, where the appellant's counsel would advance arguments.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the appeal against the NCLAT order, the request for a stay on CoC proceedings, and directed the final disposal of the appeal by a specified date. The procedural aspects of filing written submissions and relevant case laws were also dealt with in the judgment.

---