TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
................................................................................................... 18 C. Submissions ............................................................................................ 18 D. Legal Background ....................................................................................... 23 i. Legal context and fundamental principles ............................................ 23 a. General principles underlying the IBC .................................................... 23 b. Nature of the proceedings after admission of the application ................ 27 ii. Legal framework for withdrawal and settlement of claims .................. 31 a. Evolution of the legal framework ............................................................ 31 b. Insights from the evolution of the legal framework ................................. 44 iii. Scope of 'Inherent Powers' under Rule 11 ........................................ 49 E. Application to the instant case .................................................................. 51 i. Locus of the appellant before this Court .............................................. 52 ii. Appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive Agent' of all the lenders under this agreement and the 'Collateral Agent' for the secured parties. Under the terms of the Credit Agreement, the Corporate Debtor acted as a guarantor and issued a guarantee deed dated 24 November 2021 in favour of the appellant. ii. Proceedings before the Delaware Court 6. On account of an alleged default under the Credit Agreement, the appellant enforced the security in respect of the loan and took a series of steps that resulted in the removal of all pre-existing directors of Byju's Alpha Inc., including Riju Raveendran and the appointment of a new sole director. The appellant contends that despite these measures, defaults persisted in payment of the principal outstanding amount and the interest accrued under the Credit Agreement. 7. Accordingly, the appellant, acting as the Administrative Agent of the lenders, issued a notice of demand dated 6 December 2023 to the Corporate Debtor, invoking the guarantee deed and demanding that the Corporate Debtor pay the requisite amount. However, it is the case of the appellant, that the Corporate Debtor too defaulted in its capacity as the guarantor under the Credit Agreement. 8. It is contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited to, the location and amounts of his assets wherever and however held, including (i) how much money he has, including funds in his personal bank account(s), and (ii) what other assets he holds" and posted the case to a later date to determine the financial penalties to be imposed on Riju Raveendran. Eventually, on 31 July 2024, the Delaware Court imposed financial penalties of USD 10,000 per day on Riju Raveendran, which is payable until the contempt is "purged by him". iii. Insolvency proceedings against the first respondent 11. On 23 September 2023, the second respondent moved a petition under Section 9 of the IBC, in respect of an operational debt of approximately Rs 158 crore payable by the Corporate Debtor under the Team Sponsor Agreement.10 The NCLT admitted the petition on 16 July 2024 and initiated CIRP. 11 A moratorium under Section 14 of IBC was imposed and an Interim Resolution Professional,12 was appointed. 12. Separately, the appellant also filed a petition under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Debtor on 22 January 2024.13 On 16 July 2024, the NCLT disposed of the Section 7 petition, in view of the order passed on the same day admitting the Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of the hearing, i.e. 31 July 2024, it was recorded, based on the submissions by the counsel for the first and second respondents, that a sum of INR 50 crore had been transferred to the second respondent as part of a settlement. The counsel for the first respondent further submitted, before the NCLAT, that another sum of Rs 25 crore would be paid by 2 August 2024, and the balance amount of Rs 83 crore would be paid thereafter, on or before 9 September 2024.18 16. The payment was purportedly made pursuant to a settlement offer extended by Riju Raveendran, in his personal capacity, to the second respondent by an email dated July 30, 2024. He proposed to clear the operational debt of Rs 158 crore in three tranches on 30 July 2024,19 2 August 2024 and 9 August 2024, respectively. The second respondent agreed to take steps for withdrawal of the petition upon receipt of full payment of the operational debt. Relevant excerpts of the email are as follows: "1.⁠ ⁠We undertake to pay INR. 50 crores upfront today i.e. 30 June 2024, by way of RTGS from the account of its promoter, Mr. Riju Ravindran. We shall forward the UTR details of the same shortly. 2.R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luding the sale of shares held by him in the Corporate Debtor; (ii) the money was generated in India and is not linked to the money involved in the proceedings pending in the Delaware Court; (iii) the first respondent (Byju Raveendran) has not transferred any money or extended any security towards raising the sums for payment of the settlement amount. The undertaking reads as follows: "... 3. I state and confirm that no part of the Settlement Amount is being paid in violation of any order passed by any court or tribunal, including orders passed by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. 4. I have not received any portion of the USD 533 million that are the subject matter of the proceedings before the Delaware Bankruptcy Court and, accordingly, no part of those funds have been, or will be, used to pay the BCCI. In fact, the funds forming part of the Settlement Amount are being paid out of my personal funds, as explained in paragraph 8 below. 5. To clarify, under the terms of the Credit Agreement dated 24 November 2021 (the "Credit Agreement"), a group of lenders represented by GLAS Trust LLC (GLAS) disbursed an amount of USD 1.2 billion to Byju's Alpha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the amount of INR 50 crores) to BCCI on 30 June 2024; and b. from liquidation of personal assets in India, which will be used to pay the balance amount of the Settlement Amount." 19. In view of these developments, on 1 August 2024, the NCLAT passed an interim order staying the constitution of the CoC. v. Impugned Judgement 20. Before the NCLAT, the appellant contended that (i) Section 12A of the IBC and Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations 2016 deal with the settlement of claims after CIRP is initiated, both before and after the CoC is constituted. The first respondent should have, thus, approached the NCLT as mandated by Rule 30A instead of invoking the inherent powers of the NCLAT under Rule 11; (ii) NCLAT should not exercise its discretionary power under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules because the directors of the Corporate Debtor and its allied entities are fugitives, living abroad; have defaulted on government dues; Enforcement Directorate proceedings are pending, look out notices have been issued; and there has been a significant drop in the valuation of the Corporate Debtor; and (iii) the interests of all creditors must be considered while accepting a settl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed against the present Appellant, shall automatically revive." vi. Proceedings before this Court and the Delaware Court 24. On 1 August 2024, Byju's Alpha Inc. and the appellant instituted a motion before the Delaware Court seeking a temporary restraining order against Riju Raveendran, inter alia restraining him from using his personal assets to satisfy the dues of the second respondent. Before the Delaware Court, the appellant contended that fraudulent payments were being made by Riju Raveendran to pay the operational debt due to the second respondent and dismiss insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, which is "his older brother's crumbling business enterprise in India". On 8 August 2024, the Delaware Court passed an order rejecting the motion. 25. The appellant instituted the present Civil Appeal before this Court, challenging the Impugned Judgement of the NCLAT. By an Order dated 14 August 2024, this Court issued notice on the appeal and directed that there would be a stay on the operation of the Impugned Judgment. The second respondent was directed to maintain the amount of Rs 158 crores, which has been realized in pursuance of the settlement, in a sep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the CIRP Regulations 2016; b. The powers conferred on the NCLAT under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules are discretionary and should not be exercised mechanically in cases where the withdrawal of the application would prejudice other stakeholders and may result in numerous other creditors filing insolvency actions against the Corporate Debtors on account of their unpaid dues; c. NCLAT failed to deal with the objections raised by the appellant about the source of the funds and the conduct of the first respondent and his brother, Mr Riju Raveendran. Facts such as - the purported fraudulent transfer of USD 533 million to a hedge fund in the United States; the orders of the US Court restraining the brothers from transferring or dissipating the amount; the contempt proceedings against Mr Riju Raveendran; the ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate against the first respondent and the Corporate Debtor; attempts by the Corporate Debtor to dissipate assets - were not adequately dealt with in the Impugned Judgement; d. There are clear indications that the Corporate Debtor cannot service its outstanding debts to its financial creditors. There has been a 99....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant also initiated proceedings before the Delaware Bankruptcy Court to stall the settlement; e. The Corporate Debtor is an ed-tech services business, whose revenue is generated from its intellectual property and subscriptions from students. Revenues are likely to be hit with each day that the Corporate Debtor continues into insolvency, which could lead to classes shutting down, disruption of services, teachers resigning, and students dropping out; and f. The Corporate Debtor is a solvent company with a running business of 27,000 employees and 150 million students. A viable company capable of repaying its debts must not be admitted into CIRP. 32. Mr Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General appearing for the second respondent, supported the arguments of the first respondent in support of the Impugned Judgement and also advanced the following submissions: a. The IBC aims to prevent the economic death of entities, which involves encouraging settlement between the parties. NCLAT passed the Impugned Judgement after hearing all concerned parties. Thus, there was no infirmity in invoking inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016; b. Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Companies Act, 2013. These statutes provide for creation of multiple fora such as Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and their respective Appellate Tribunals. Liquidation of companies is handled by the High Courts. Individual bankruptcy and insolvency is dealt with under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 and is dealt with by the courts. The existing framework for insolvency and bankruptcy is inadequate, ineffective and results in undue delays in resolution, therefore, the proposed legislation. 2. The objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2015 is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time-bound manner for maximisation of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterests. The moratorium imposed by Section 14 is in the interest of the corporate debtor itself, thereby preserving the assets of the corporate debtor during the resolution process. The timelines within which the resolution process is to take place again protects the corporate debtor's assets from further dilution, and also protects all its creditors and workers by seeing that the resolution process goes through as fast as possible so that another management can, through its entrepreneurial skills, resuscitate the corporate debtor to achieve all these ends." (emphasis supplied) 38. A two-judge Bench of this Court, speaking through one of us (DY Chandrachud, J), in Arun Kumar Jagatramka v Jindal Steel & Power Ltd24 also had occasion to observe the quantum change in corporate governance and the rule of law brought in by the enactment of the IBC. This Court observed as follows: "41. ... First and foremost, the IBC perceives good corporate governance, respect for and adherence to the rule of law as central to the resolution of corporate insolvencies. Second, the IBC perceives corporate insolvency not as an isolated problem faced by individual business entities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covery mechanism has been reiterated in a consistent line of precedent by this Court;25 and d. The interests of the corporate debtor must be detached from those of its promoters/those who are in management. A "recalcitrant management"26 must be prevented from taking advantage of undue delays and preventing an inevitable insolvency. In other words, as noted by this Court in Arun Kumar Jagatramka (supra), the economic value of corporate structures is broader than the partisan interests of their management. b. Nature of the proceedings after admission of the application 40. Chapter II of the IBC provides that CIRP can be invoked in three ways: (i) by a financial creditor under Section 7; (ii) by an operational creditor under Section 9; and (iii) by a corporate debtor itself under Section 10.27 Section 5(11) of the IBC defines the "initiation date" as the date on which the financial creditor, operational creditor or corporate applicant makes an application to the NCLT for initiating insolvency proceedings, including CIRP. This is distinct from the "insolvency commencement date" which is defined in Section 5(12) of the IBC as the date of admission of an application ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the financial creditor, the corporate debtor is entitled to point out that the default has not occurred and that the debt is not due, consequently to satisfy the adjudicating authority that there is no default. In such exercise undertaken by the adjudicating authority if it is found that there is default, the process as contemplated under subsection (5) of Section 7 of IB Code is to be followed as provided under sub-section (5)(a); or if there is no default the adjudicating authority shall reject the application as provided under sub-section (5)(b) to Section 7 of IB Code. In that circumstance if the finding of default is recorded and the adjudicating authority proceeds to admit the application, the corporate insolvency resolution process commences as provided under sub-section (6) and is required to be processed further. In such event, it becomes a proceeding in rem on the date of admission and from that point onwards the matter would not be arbitrable. The only course to be followed thereafter is the resolution process under IB Code. Therefore, the trigger point is not the filing of the application under Section 7 of IB Code but admission of the same on determining default.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t or its allied rules and regulations, for the withdrawal of CIRP after the application had been admitted. Although there was no express provision in this regard, in several instances, this Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and permitted withdrawal of the CIRP on account of a settlement between the creditor and the corporate debtor after the application had been admitted by the NCLT.36 47. In one such decision of this Court, namely, Lokhandwala Kataria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Nisus Finance and Investment Managers LLP,37 a two-judge bench of this Court invoked its power under Article 142 to record the settlement of the parties and allow the compromise between the creditor and the corporate debtor after the admission of the concerned application. While doing so, this Court also prima facie agreed with the proposition that in view of Rule 8 of the CIRP Rules, the NCLAT cannot use its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCALT Rules 2016 to allow a settlement or withdrawal after the admission of the application. 48. The above position was followed by the same Bench of this Court in Uttara Foods & Feeds (P) Ltd. v. Mona Pharmachem,38 while allowing an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....veral cases, a settlement may be reached amongst "all creditors and the debtor" for withdrawal, and not only between the individual applicant creditor and the debtor. In light of this, the ILC unanimously agreed that the relevant rules may be amended to provide for withdrawal postadmission if the CoC approved of such an action by a voting share of ninety per cent. Significantly, the report states that the ILC specifically discussed and concluded that Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 may not be adopted for withdrawal of CIRP, and instead Rule 8 of the CIRP Rules may be appropriately amended. The observations in the ILC Report on this aspect are as follows : "29.2. On a review of the multiple NCLT and NCLAT judgments in this regard, the consistent pattern that emerged was that a settlement may be reached amongst all creditors and the debtor, for the purpose of a withdrawal to be granted, and not only the applicant creditor and the debtor. On this basis read with the intent of the Code, the Committee unanimously agreed that the relevant rules may be amended to provide for withdrawal post admission if the CoC approves of such action by a voting share of ninety per cent. It was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-A. Withdrawal of application.- (1) An application for withdrawal under Section 12-A shall be submitted to the interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, in Form FA of the Schedule before issue of invitation for expression of interest under Regulation 36-A. (2) The application in sub-regulation (1) shall be accompanied by a bank guarantee towards estimated cost incurred for purposes of clauses (c) and (d) of Regulation 31 till the date of application. (3) The committee shall consider the application made under sub-regulation (1) within seven days of its constitution or seven days of receipt of the application, whichever is later. (4) Where the application is approved by the committee with ninety per cent voting share, the resolution professional shall submit the application under sub-regulation (1) to the adjudicating authority on behalf of the applicant, within three days of such approval. (5) The adjudicating authority may, by order, approve the application submitted under subregulation (4)." 54. Regulation 30A(1), as it stood originally, required that an application for withdrawal shall be submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that is before the adjudicating authority, being a collective proceeding, is a proceeding in rem. Being a proceeding in rem, it is necessary that the body which is to oversee the resolution process must be consulted before any individual corporate debtor is allowed to settle its claim. A question arises as to what is to happen before a Committee of Creditors is constituted (as per the timelines that are specified, a Committee of Creditors can be appointed at any time within 30 days from the date of appointment of the interim resolution professional). We make it clear that at any stage where the Committee of Creditors is not yet constituted, a party can approach NCLT directly, which Tribunal may, in exercise of its inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, allow or disallow an application for withdrawal or settlement. This will be decided after hearing all the parties concerned and considering all relevant factors on the facts of each case. 83. The main thrust against the provision of Section 12-A is the fact that ninety per cent of the Committee of Creditors has to allow withdrawal. This high threshold has been explained in the ILC Report as all financial credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of the CIRP Regulations.44 This amendment came into effect on 25 July 2019 and Regulation 30A in its present form reads as follows: "30A. Withdrawal of application. (1) An application for withdrawal under section 12A may be made to the Adjudicating Authority - (a) before the constitution of the committee, by the applicant through the interim resolution professional; (b) after the constitution of the committee, by the applicant through the interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be: Provided that where the application is made under clause (b) after the issue of invitation for expression of interest under regulation 36A, the applicant shall state the reasons justifying withdrawal after issue of such invitation. (2) The application under sub-regulation (1) shall be made in Form FA of the Schedule-I accompanied by a bank guarantee- (a) towards estimated expenses incurred on or by the interim resolution professional for purposes of regulation 33, till the date of filing of the application under clause (a) of sub- regulation (1); or (b) towards estimated expenses incurred for purposes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ency proceedings, i.e. the IRP or the RP. 61. The proviso to Regulation 30A (1) provides that when the application is made after the CoC has been constituted and after the invitation for expression of interest has been issued, the applicant shall state the reasons for withdrawal at this stage. In essence, the regulation in its amended form, deviates from its earlier form by also responding to the decision of this Court in Brilliant Alloy Private Limited (supra). Unlike the unamended regulation, the regulation acknowledges the possibility of withdrawal even after the invitation for expression has been issued. However, it mandates that an application for withdrawal in such cases must be accompanied by reasons. 62. Regulation 30A (2) provides that the application must be made in the manner prescribed in Form FA of Schedule-I,45 and must be accompanied by a bank guarantee towards the specified expenses. Regulation 30A(3) provides that in cases where the application for withdrawal is moved before the constitution of the CoC, the IRP shall submit the application to the NCLT on behalf of the applicant within three days of receipt. Regulations 30A (4) and (5) deal with the situation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reditor and the corporate debtor. They are now in rem and at this stage, the NCLT must hear the concerned parties and consider all relevant factors before approving or rejecting the application for withdrawal. The NCLT being a quasi-judicial body, must not act as a mere post office, which stamps and approves every settlement agreement, without application of judicial mind. iii. After an application under Section 7, 9 or 10 is admitted, the CoC has been constituted and the invitation for expression of interest has not been issued: Section 12A read with Regulation 30A provides exhaustively for this scenario. In such cases, the application for withdrawal is to be placed before the NCLT, through the IRP or the RP. The application is first placed before the CoC and after ascertaining approval with a ninety percent voting share, the RP shall submit the application to the NCLT. iv. After an application under Section 7, 9 or 10 is admitted, the CoC has been formed and the invitation for expression of interest has been issued: The procedure is the same as that detailed in (iii) above, with the added requirement stemming from the proviso to Regulation 30A (1). in such cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement. At this stage, according to him, the NCLT is not required to hear any other parties, but only approve the application and thus, whether the application is submitted through the IRP or whether it is before the NCLT or the NCLAT, is a mere technicality. 66. We do not concur with the above understanding for two broad reasons. a. Firstly, that the application is to be submitted by the IRP rather than the parties themselves is not a distinction without difference. As noted above, once the application is admitted and CIRP is initiated, it is the IRP who takes charge of the affairs of the corporate debtor. The proceedings become collective proceedings and the interests of the former management of the corporate debtor, become disjunct from the interest of the corporate debtor. Therefore, the parties (such as the former management of the corporate debtor) must submit their application for withdrawal through the IRP who is now the person in control of the insolvency proceedings. To subvert this requirement would run contrary to the scheme of the IBC and the underlying principles discussed in this judgment; and b. Secondly, the NCLT cannot be considered a post offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mills (P) Ltd. v. Kanhayalal Bhargava,48 a two-judge bench of this Court, speaking through Justice K Subba Rao (as the learned chief Justice then was), opined: "5. ... Having regard to the said decisions, the scope of the inherent power of a court under Section 151 of the Code may be defined thus: The inherent power of a court is in addition to and complementary to the powers expressly conferred under the Code. But that power will not be exercised if its exercise is inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other provisions of the Code. If there are express provisions exhaustively covering a particular topic, they give rise to a necessary implication that no power shall be exercised in respect of the said topic otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the said provisions. Whatever limitations are imposed by construction on the provisions of Section 151 of the Code, they do not control the undoubted power of the Court conferred under Section 151 of the Code to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court." (emphasis supplied) 70. When a procedure has been p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the present factual context, namely, the locus of the appellant to institute the present proceedings and the approach of the NCLAT in the Impugned Judgment. i. Locus of the appellant before this Court 73. The counsel for the respondents sought to argue that the appellant does not have the locus to maintain the present proceedings before this Court. They contend that in a case for settlement between the Corporate Debtor and the second respondent, there is no scope for hearing any other creditors, such as the appellant. We do not find merit in this submission. 74. Section 62 of the IBC governs statutory appeals to the Supreme Court from the orders of the NCLAT. The provision reads as follows: "62. Appeal to Supreme Court - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law arising out of such order under this Code within forty-five days from the date of receipt of such order. (2) The Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that a person was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal within forty-five days, allow the appeal to be filed within a furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of the appellant on this point. 78. In paragraph 63 of this judgement, we identified the four stages at which a procedure for the withdrawal of CIRP or settlement of claims is contemplated in the existing legal framework. The situation before the NCLAT in the present case fell within serial number (ii), that is, when the application of a creditor has been admitted and CIRP has been initiated, however, the CoC has not been formed. When settlement was sought by the first respondent before the NCLAT, the Section 9 petition had been admitted and the Section 7 petition had also been disposed of on that basis. However, admittedly, on this date, i.e. 31 July 2024, the CoC had not been constituted and the NCLAT subsequently stayed the formation of the CoC. 79. In such cases, the legal framework mandates that an (i) application for withdrawal be moved; (ii) the application has to be moved through the IRP; and (iii) it be placed before the NCLT for approval. None of these requirements were met in the present case. First and foremost, there was no formal application instituted to seek the withdrawal of the CIRP. The settlement agreement was taken on record and approved by the NCLAT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relies entirely on the undertaking filed by Riju Raveendran and states that "although, the Applicant is not satisfied about the undertaking but the Applicant has also not brought on record any evidence to the contrary that the money which is being offered has actually been brought by Riju Raveendran from the money disbursed to the borrower in terms of credit agreement or has been taken out of the coffers of the CD." Alleged facts such as the fraudulent transfer of USD 533 million to a hedge fund in the United States; the orders of the US Court restraining the brothers from transferring or dissipating the amount; the contempt proceedings against Mr Riju Raveendran; the ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate against the first respondent and the Corporate Debtor; and other attempts by the Corporate Debtor to dissipate assets, were not adequately addressed by the NCLAT. iii. Decisions of this Court cited in the Impugned Judgement 82. The respondents relied on the decisions of this Court in Ashok G. Rajani v. Beacon Trusteeship Ltd.51, and Abhishek Kumar (supra) to argue that before the CoC is formed, the proceedings are between the applicant creditor and the debtor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rporate debtor had been admitted, but the CoC had not been constituted. The decision refers to Section 12A of the IBC but fails to even acknowledge the amendment to Regulation 30A, which specifically provided for such an eventuality. Instead, this Court proceeded to hold while Section 12A of the IBC permits withdrawal after admission of the application by the creditor, it only provides for the procedure for withdrawal after the CoC has been constituted, without laying down a bar on withdrawal before the constitution of the CoC. According to the two-judge bench, the question of approval of the CoC by the requisite percentage of votes can only arise after the CoC is constituted and thus, Rule 11 must be invoked to allow withdrawal. This observation was made without as much as a passing reference to Regulation 30A, which specifically governs such a situation. 85. The decision of this Court in Abhishek Kumar (supra) rendered by a two-judge bench of this Court speaking through Justice Vikram Nath, correctly identifies the legal framework. However, it is distinguishable from the present factual situation and the findings of this Court do not support the case of the respondents. The fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her developments and to abide by the further directions of the NCLT. 89. The civil appeal and special leave petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. 90. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Foot Note 1 "NCLAT" 2 "Impugned Judgement" 3 "NCLT" 4 "IBC" 5 "CIRP" 6 "NCLAT Rules" 7 "Corporate Debtor" 8 "Credit Agreement" 9 "Delaware Court" 10 Company Petition (IB) No. 149/BB/2023 ("Section 9 Petition") 11 "Section 9 Order" 12 "IRP" 13 Company Petition (IB) No. 55/BB/2024 ("Section 7 Petition") 14 "Section 7 Order" 15 CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 262 of 2024. 16 CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 274 of 2024. 17 I.A. No. 727 of 2024. 18 Impugned Judgement, paras 9-11. 19 The settlement offer inadvertently stated "30 June 2024", which was clarified to be a typographical error for 30 July 2024. 20 2023 SCC Online SC 349 21 (2022) 8 SCC 330. 22 (2019) 4 SCC 17. 23 (2019) 4 SCC 17. 24 (2021) 7 SCC 474. 25 Swiss Ribbons, para 28; 26 Mobilox, para 36. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6 SCC 436. 34 "CIRP Rules" 35 "8. Withdrawal of application. -The Adjudicating Authority may permit withdrawal of the application made under rules 4, 6 or 7, as the case may be, on a request made by the applicant before its admission." 36 Mothers Pride Dairy India Private Limited v. Portrait Advertising and Marketing Private Limited, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1789; Uttara Foods & Feeds (P) Ltd. v. Mona Pharmachem, (2018) 15 SCC 587. 37 (2018) 15 SCC 589. 38 (2018) 15 SCC 587. 39 "ILC" 40 "ILC Report" 41 Act No. 26 of 2018. 42 IBBI (CIRP) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018 vide Notification No. IBBI/2018-19/GN/REG031, dated 3rd July, 2018, w.e.f. 04.07.2018. 43 (2022) 2 SCC 544. 44 Notification No. IBBI/2019-20/GN/REG048, dated 25th July, 2019 (w.e.f. 25-07-2019) 45 ^171 FORM FA APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS [Under Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016] [Date] To The Adjudicating Authority [Through the ....