Supreme Court: Promoter's plan valid under MSME status, sets timeline for OTS proposal

The Supreme Court held that the company qualified as a Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (MSME) before insolvency proceedings, making the promoter's plan eligible. The Court overturned the disqualification of the plan due to the promoter's status, emphasizing the importance of prompt resolution in insolvency cases. The Resolution Professional was given a two-month window for the promoter to present an OTS proposal to financial creditors. If not accepted, the Professional could proceed with e-voting results, clarifying legal principles for future cases.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the status of a company as a Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (MSME) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the eligibility of a plan submitted by the respondent who is a promoter of the company. The judgment also addresses a contempt proceeding filed against the Resolution Professional for not acting in accordance with a previous order.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Status of the Company as an MSME:
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) initially questioned the MSME status of the company due to the timing of the certificate procurement. However, the NCLAT later found that the company was indeed an MSME before the insolvency proceedings began, making it eligible for benefits under the MSME Act. This finding allowed the plan submitted by the respondent, who is a promoter, to be considered for approval.

2. Eligibility of the Plan Submitted:
The NCLT had deemed the plan submitted by the respondent as ineligible due to their status as a promoter, leading to disqualification under Section 29(A)(e) of the Code. However, with the NCLAT confirming the company's MSME status predating the proceedings, the plan became eligible for consideration. This change in status necessitated the Resolution Professional to act accordingly.

3. Contempt Proceedings:
The Resolution Professional faced a contempt proceeding initiated by the respondent due to alleged non-compliance with a previous order. The respondent cited specific observations from the impugned order regarding the MSME status of the company and the control of the corporate debtor. These observations were made in reference to a previous judgment titled "Saravana Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors."

4. Interpretation of Previous Judgment:
The judgment in question referred to a previous case involving an MSME where it was held that, in exceptional circumstances, promoters of an MSME need not compete with other resolution applicants to regain control of the corporate debtor. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the broader reasoning in the impugned judgment, suggesting no need for other proposals if it is an MSME, was not the correct interpretation of the law.

5. Decision and Future Proceedings:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order's observations and allowed a two-month window for the respondent to persuade financial creditors with an OTS proposal. If the proposal is not accepted within this timeframe, the Resolution Professional is free to declare the results of the e-voting on all proposals. The judgment emphasized the need for a quick resolution in insolvency matters and clarified the legal principles for future reference.

---