TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal had any statutory power to extend the period of a sanctioned revival scheme and modify the MDRS after the coming into force of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the repeal of the SICA regime.
Analysis: The sanctioned scheme had earlier been approved by the BIFR and later found to have expired when the company failed to achieve positive net worth within the stipulated period. The order notes that, after the repeal framework and commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the earlier BIFR proceedings stood abated, while the saved scheme could continue only within the limits of the new statutory framework. The Tribunal held that Part II of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not confer any power on the adjudicating authority to review or extend an already sanctioned scheme. It further observed that the power to review or modify such schemes had existed under the earlier company law framework, but no corresponding provision survived in the Code to authorise the relief sought.
Conclusion: The request for extension of the sanctioned scheme was not maintainable and was rejected; liquidation consequences were held to follow in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Final Conclusion: The application failed because the Tribunal found no legal basis to enlarge or revive the expired sanctioned scheme under the existing insolvency regime.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory provision, the adjudicating authority cannot review, extend, or modify a sanctioned revival scheme after the SICA regime has been repealed and the matter has moved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
