Supreme Court allows fresh resolution plan submission after lifting Section 29A(f) ineligibility following BSE restraint removal

The SC set aside NCLAT's judgment rejecting a resolution plan under Section 29A(f) of IBC due to applicant's ineligibility. Following BSE's communication dated 16 February 2021 lifting restraint status on appellants and availability of substantially higher offers to CoC, the Court permitted appellants to submit fresh resolution plan and EoI within thirty days. Bank guarantees and earnest money from original plan to be returned to facilitate fresh submission. CIRP completion period extended by sixty days. RP directed to file fresh application before adjudicating authority for resolution plan approval under Section 31 IBC after completing process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 29A(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
2. Validity of debarment by SEBI and BSE.
3. Impact of subsequent developments on resolution process.

Interpretation of Section 29A(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code:
In the case involving two appeals arising from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's judgment, the issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 29A(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appellant, a resolution applicant, was declared ineligible under this provision due to alleged debarment by SEBI from accessing the securities market. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that SEBI had not exercised its powers under Section 11(4) of the SEBI Act 1992 to debar them. The NCLT upheld the debarment, which was subsequently affirmed by the NCLAT. However, the Supreme Court, after considering the submissions made, concluded that the appellant was not validly debarred under Section 29A(f) and directed further proceedings based on subsequent developments and fresh Expressions of Interest (EoIs).

Validity of debarment by SEBI and BSE:
The appellant's contention was that the debarment by BSE, based on SEBI's circulars, was illegal as SEBI had not delegated the power to impose such restrictions. The NCLAT observed that the validity of BSE's notice should be determined through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments, noted that subsequent developments, including the lifting of the restraint status by BSE, influenced the resolution process significantly. As a result, the Court directed the CoC to consider the fresh EoIs and allowed the appellant to submit a new resolution plan within a specified timeframe.

Impact of subsequent developments on resolution process:
The Supreme Court considered the subsequent developments, such as the lifting of the restraint status by BSE and the emergence of substantially higher offers during the resolution process. In light of these developments, the Court directed the CoC to proceed based on the fresh EoIs, allowing the appellant to submit a new resolution plan within thirty days. The Court extended the completion period by sixty days and instructed the return of bank guarantees and earnest money to facilitate the submission of a fresh resolution plan. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the NCLAT was set aside, and the case was disposed of based on the new directions provided by the Court.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the Supreme Court's decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.

---