TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The prayers are reproduced below: "i. Releasing the sum of INR 5,52,30,693/-(Indian Rupees Five Crore Fifty-Two Lakh Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Three only), deposited by the Petitioner vide an FDR dated April 03, 2021 of Bank of India issued in the name of 'Registrar General, High Court of Delhi' prepared from the bank account No. 404445110003480, LCB Branch, Kolkata along with interest accrued thereon; ii. Dismissing the present petition, being O.M.P. (COMM) 362 of 2018 and the corresponding enforcement proceedings initiated by the Respondent herein, being O.M.P.(ENF.)(COMM) No. 270 of 2018 as infructuous by operation of law; iii. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. The brief facts are that the Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (for short 'BHEL') invited bids for two barrel type blender reclaimers. The petitioner, M/s McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited (for short 'MBECL') had an agreement with the Metso India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') for providing information through techno commercial offer for enabling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mills Limited v. Gayatri Industries and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom556. 4. Per contra, consequent to MBECL depositing the awarded amount before this court no claim was required to be made before the RP and the deposit of the awarded amount is payment to the respondent. To buttress the contention that the deposit of the amount in court tantamounts to payment to the judgment creditor, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority & Anr. v. Ranjit Singh Rana, 2012 4 SCC 505, of this court in M/s Ramacivil India Constructions Private Limited v. Union of India 2024:DHC:5343 and of the Division Bench of the Bombay HC in Reliance Communication Limited v. Rajendra P. Bansal, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 33 dated 04.01.2023 in interim application no.1161/2020 in first appeal no.1539/2012. 4.1 The argument is that the amount deposited in this court was not reflected as an asset in the balance sheet of MBECL. Further that in violation of Section 29 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'IBC') the deposited amount was not shown in the Information Memorandum prepared by the RP. It is contended that under Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion with third parties unless clauses (a) and (b) of this sub-section are complied with. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "relevant information" means the information required by the resolution applicant to make the resolution plan for the corporate debtor, which shall include the financial position of the corporate debtor, all information related to disputes by or against the corporate debtor and any other matter pertaining to the corporate debtor as may be specified." "31. Approval of resolution plan.-(1) If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors under sub-section (4) of section 30 meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 30, it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, [including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed,] guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, (2021) 9 SCC 657 held that provision of Section 31 of the IBC was necessitated for revival of the corporate debtor and to make it a running concern. The decision in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 531 was considered wherein the concept that after approved plan corporate debtor starts with a fresh slate was laid. It was factored that if after approval of a plan the corporate debtor faces an undecided claim, it would remain in uncertainty. It was further held that the claims which do not form part of the approved plan shall stand extinguished and cannot thereafter be initiated or continued. It would be fruitful to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the judgment- "65. Bare reading of Section 31 of the I&B Code would also make it abundantly clear that once the resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, after it is satisfied, that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30, it shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccessful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, NCLAT judgment [Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 388] must also be set aside on this count." *** *** *** 74. As such, with respect to the proceedings, which arise after 16-8-2019, there will be no difficulty. After the amendment, any debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force including the ones owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, which does not form a part of the approved resolution plan, shall stand extinguished. *** *** *** 102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: 102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an and so much so this would apply to the statutory dues owed to the Central/State Governments, local bodies, etc. In the instant case, the claims which were referred to arbitration were not part of the approved resolution plan and stood extinguished and were thus not arbitrable." 9.3 In Akash Construction v. Indira Priyadarshini Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., (2024) SCC OnLine Del 3602 it was held as under: "18. The proposition of law having been crystallized that once a successful Resolution Plan is accepted, all the Claims against Corporate Debtor gets extinguished and only such debts which form part of Resolution Plan would be taken up by the Successful Resolution Applicant. 19. The question which now arises is whether the petition under Section 34 challenging the Award, would become not maintainable. The scheme as envisaged in IBC is that a Notice is required to be given at various stages since the inception of the petition till the approval of the Resolution Plan, by the IRP. The Claims so submitted by the Operational Creditors before the Interim Resolution Professionals pursuant to these Public Notices, are then considered and made into Information Memorandum wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned award. The deposit of the amount in the court does not affect the ownership of the asset. 14. The matter needs to be considered from another angle that for release of the amount the respondent has to take permission of the court and the release may be made subject to a condition of securing the amount. With the change in circumstances the condition of deposit to secure the amount due can be modified by the court. There is no vested right created in favour of the decree holder for unconditional receipt of the amount deposited in the court. The deposit continues to remain in the form of security. 15. The reliance placed on Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority & Anr. (supra), M/s Ramacivil India Constructions Private Limited (supra) and Reliance Communication Limited (supra) by learned counsel for the respondent to contend that the amount deposited in court amounts to payment to the decree holder lacks merit. The issue in those cases was that whether the decree holder was entitled to interest after the deposit of amount till it is released. In this regard, the Supreme Court observed that the word 'payment' may have different meanings in different contexts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... court prior to commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process by way of security (to protect against execution of any judgment or decree), would not cease to be the asset of the corporate debtor; (B) Consequently, the monies deposited by the applicant-appellant in this court constitute assets owned by the applicant-appellant although they are not in possession of the applicant-appellant; (C) Therefore, we hereby permit the applicant-appellant to withdraw Appeal No. 597 of 2016, and indeed withdraw the amounts deposited in this court in these proceedings, along with all earnings thereon. Refund of court fees shall be processed as per rules; (D) The amounts deposited in court shall be released to the applicant-appellant within a period of two weeks from today, subject to compliance with the procedural rules of this court, administered by the Registry; and (E) The substantive rights of the respondent who is the judgment creditor under the impugned judgment shall be subject to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code." 17. The Bombay High Court in Reliance Naval and Engineering Ltd.(supra) while directing refund of the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Afcons would need to be invoked. *** *** *** 23. Therefore, Afcons is directed to bring back the amount of Rs. 12,76,91,279 to the Registry. The Respondent must do so within a period of four weeks from the upload of this order on the website of this Court." 18. A similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in Garden Silk Mills Limited (supra) wherein it was held as under- "21. Resultantly, the inevitable conclusion is that as Respondent 1's claim did not form part of the resolution plan due to failure of Respondent 1 to lodge its claim with the resolution professional, upon approval of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal vide order dated 1-1-2021, the debt stood extinguished. Upon extinguishment of debt, no right vests in Respondent 1 in respect of the bank guarantees or to oppose the release of bank guarantees. Consequently, the interim application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) as under: "(a) That this Court be pleased to direct that the order and decree dated 20-1-2023 stands extinguished and no proceeding in respect thereto can be continued and/or initiated. (b) That this Court b....