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: (i) Whether the period spent in litigation challenging an earlier order could be excluded for computing the corporate insolvency resolution process timeline, and whether the resolution plan was submitted within time. (ii) Whether the resolution plan complied with the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and was liable to be approved, including the treatment of requests for waiver of statutory dues and tax related exemptions.
Issue (i): Whether the period spent in litigation challenging an earlier order could be excluded for computing the corporate insolvency resolution process timeline, and whether the resolution plan was submitted within time.
Analysis: The period consumed in litigation arising from the challenge to the earlier adjudicating authority order was treated as excludable while computing the outer limit for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process. On that basis, the plan approved by the committee of creditors on 06.08.2018 and placed before the adjudicating authority on 13.08.2018 was held to be within time. The exclusion principle was applied so that the time spent in inter-party litigation did not defeat the resolution process.
Conclusion: The resolution plan was held to be within the permissible time and not barred on the ground of expiry of the corporate insolvency resolution process period.
Issue (ii): Whether the resolution plan complied with the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and was liable to be approved, including the treatment of requests for waiver of statutory dues and tax related exemptions.
Analysis: The resolution plan was found to satisfy the requirements of Section 30(2), having been approved by the committee of creditors with the requisite voting share and supported by the resolution professional's certification regarding eligibility under Section 29A. The adjudicating authority's role was confined to verifying compliance with the statutory requirements and did not extend to granting concessions beyond its powers. Requests for waiver of statutory liabilities, taxes, and stamp duty exemptions were held not to be capable of grant through approval of the resolution plan and were left to the appropriate statutory authorities.
Conclusion: The resolution plan was approved, while the requests for waiver of statutory dues and similar exemptions were declined as beyond the adjudicating authority's power.
Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan was sanctioned and made binding, the moratorium ceased, and the corporate insolvency resolution process was brought to a close with implementation of the revival plan.
Ratio Decidendi: In approving a resolution plan, the adjudicating authority's scrutiny is limited to statutory compliance under the insolvency framework, and it cannot confer waivers of statutory dues or tax exemptions through the plan itself.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
