Supreme Court Clarifies Intervention in Corporate Insolvency Process The Supreme Court considered an application for intervention in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by a financial creditor against ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Supreme Court Clarifies Intervention in Corporate Insolvency Process
The Supreme Court considered an application for intervention in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by a financial creditor against a corporate debtor. The NCLAT allowed the intervention, leading to a main appeal. Despite the finality of the NCLAT's order, the CIRP initiated by the intervenor was put on hold by the NCLT due to an interim stay granted by the Supreme Court in another proceeding. The Court clarified that the intervenor can reapply to the NCLT for restoration, and fresh orders should be passed accordingly. Both CIRPs are currently on hold pending further proceedings.
Issues involved: Application for intervention in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by a financial creditor against a corporate debtor, simultaneous CIRPs against the same debtor, finality of orders passed by NCLAT.
Summary: The Supreme Court heard an application for intervention by a financial creditor seeking to intervene in a main appeal filed by a corporate debtor against an order of admission in a CIRP initiated by another financial creditor. The NCLT dismissed the application filed by the respondent in the main Civil Appeal under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), but the NCLAT allowed it, leading to the main appeal. Another financial creditor of the corporate debtor also filed an application under Section 7 IBC, which was initially dismissed by the NCLT but later reversed by the NCLAT. Despite the finality of the NCLAT's order, the CIRP initiated by the proposed intervenor was put on hold by the NCLT due to an interim stay granted by the Supreme Court in another proceeding. The corporate debtor argued against two simultaneous CIRPs, which is legally well-founded, but both CIRPs are currently on hold. The Court clarified that the intervenor can reapply to the NCLT for restoration, and fresh orders should be passed accordingly. The appeal is scheduled for hearing in July 2023.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
