Supreme Court clarifies adjudicating authority's power under IBC Section 7(5)

The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition regarding the interpretation of Section 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Court reaffirmed that the adjudicating authority has the power to admit or reject an application under this section, with no provision for compelling parties to settle disputes. It clarified that the issue was not about mandatory versus discretionary provisions but rather about the authority's ability to impose a settlement on unwilling parties. The Court emphasized that judicial interpretations are case-specific and not equivalent to statutory provisions, ultimately upholding the original judgment and disposing of the review petition and any pending applications.

---

---

Issues: Review of judgment based on interpretation of Section 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) regarding the powers of the adjudicating authority and the question of mandatory versus discretionary provisions.

The judgment by the Supreme Court pertains to a review petition concerning the interpretation of Section 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The petition was listed for open court hearing due to the oversight of a previous judgment in E.S. Krishnamurthy & Ors. vs. Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. The attention was drawn to specific paragraphs of the said judgment. The Court highlighted that the adjudicating authority under Section 7(5) of the IBC has the power to either admit or reject an application, with no provision for any other action. The authority cannot compel parties to settle a dispute. The Solicitor General emphasized the limited actions available to the adjudicating authority under Section 7(5), stressing that the authority must either admit or reject an application based on a default occurrence verification.

The Court clarified that the issue in Krishnamurthy's case was not about the mandatory or discretionary nature of Section 7(5) but rather about whether the adjudicating authority could impose a settlement on unwilling parties, which was answered negatively. The Solicitor General expressed concerns that certain observations in the judgment might contradict the objectives of the IBC, but the Court dismissed these apprehensions, stating that judicial statements are case-specific and not to be equated with statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that judicial interpretations are not legislative provisions and are made in the context of specific cases.

Ultimately, the Court found no grounds for a review of the judgment and disposed of the review petition. Any pending applications were also deemed disposed of. The judgment reaffirmed the limited actions available to the adjudicating authority under Section 7(5) of the IBC and clarified the scope of its powers in admitting or rejecting applications without compelling parties to settle disputes.

---