Supreme Court Orders Swift Implementation of Amtek Auto's Insolvency Resolution Plan

The Supreme Court directed all parties involved in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Amtek Auto Limited to implement the approved resolution plan within four weeks. Emphasizing adherence to timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Court disposed of the appeal, instructing the transfer of funds and mutual performance of obligations by the parties. The Implementation and Monitoring Committee was tasked with overseeing the plan's implementation to ensure timely completion and prevent the IBC's purpose from being defeated.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation and progression of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Amtek Auto Limited.
2. Withdrawal of the Resolution Plan by Liberty House Group Private Limited.
3. Reconsideration and approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Deccan Value Investor LP (DVI).
4. Non-implementation of the approved Resolution Plan by DVI.
5. Legal proceedings and appeals related to the implementation of the Resolution Plan.
6. Contempt proceedings against DVI for non-compliance with the approved Resolution Plan.
7. Directions for the timely implementation of the Resolution Plan.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation and Progression of CIRP:
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Amtek Auto Limited on 24.07.2017 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). A resolution professional was appointed, and an advertisement was published inviting prospective resolution applicants to submit a Resolution Plan by 31.08.2017. The Committee of Creditors (COC) considered the Resolution Plans submitted by Deccan Value Investor LP (DVI) and Liberty House Group Private Limited (Liberty).

2. Withdrawal of Resolution Plan by Liberty:
DVI withdrew its Resolution Plan, leading the COC to consider and approve the revised plan of Liberty on 2.4.2018. However, Liberty failed to act as per the approved Resolution Plan, resulting in multiple proceedings against them.

3. Reconsideration and Approval of DVI's Plan:
An application was filed under Section 60(5) read with Section 74(3) of the IBC by the COC/financial creditors, informing that Liberty failed to act as per the approved Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority directed the reconstitution of the COC for reconsideration of the Resolution Plan submitted by DVI. The COC invited fresh applications, and DVI’s revised plan was eventually approved by the COC with a 70% majority.

4. Non-Implementation of DVI's Plan:
Despite the approval by the Adjudicating Authority and the dismissal of appeals against the approval, DVI did not act as per the approved Resolution Plan. The COC filed a Contempt Petition against DVI, and DVI filed an application for rectification of the earlier order, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

5. Legal Proceedings and Appeals:
The Supreme Court stayed the liquidation proceedings and permitted the resolution professional to invite fresh offers. The approved Resolution Plan by DVI was to be implemented, but DVI attempted to withdraw, leading to further legal proceedings. The Supreme Court directed that the appeal filed by DVI against the approval of the resolution plan be heard and disposed of by the appellate authority within a month.

6. Contempt Proceedings:
The Supreme Court observed that DVI’s conduct was not bona fide and that their application for rectification was an attempt to renege from the resolution plan. However, the court decided not to invoke contempt jurisdiction but emphasized that DVI should not set up a plea of force majeure in the pending proceedings.

7. Directions for Timely Implementation:
The Supreme Court directed that the approved resolution plan be implemented within four weeks. It was noted that DVI had transferred Rs. 500 crores to the bank account of Amtek Auto Limited, and the Implementation and Monitoring Committee (IMC) was constituted to supervise the implementation. The court stressed the importance of completing the resolution process within the stipulated time to avoid defeating the purpose of the IBC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed all concerned parties to implement the approved resolution plan within four weeks, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the timelines stipulated under Section 12 of the IBC. The appeal was disposed of with specific instructions for the transfer of funds and mutual performance of obligations by both parties.

---