TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 896
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the respondent No.3 ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench - II ('NCLT') dated 15.07.2026 rejecting an application filed by the respondent No.2 - M/s. Maximus ARC Limited - for grant of 90 days time to consider a proposal for Compromise and Arrangement. 2. The I.A. was filed under The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') in respect of the respondent No.1 Corporate Debtor/M/s. Sri Lakshmikantha Spinners Limited (In Liquidation). 3. The respondent No.1 is represented in the present Writ Petition by the Liquidator. The respondent No.2 - M/s. Maximus ARC Limited is the Sole Financial Creditor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Creditor holding 100% of the voting share. Senior Counsel submits that there is no 'collateral challenge' to the order dated 16.06.2026 or 'res judicata' in such circumstances, as an extension under Regulation 2B of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 ('IBBI Regulations, 2016') is procedural and not an adjudication on the merits of the Scheme. 7. It is also submitted that revival under section 230 of The Companies Act, 2013 should be given primacy over and above Liquidation. It is further submitted that the Scheme provides a substantially higher value than the Liquidation Value of the Corporate Debtor, i.e. Rs. 47.06 crores and thereby advances the objective of value maximization under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbers. 12. Regulation 2B(1) of the IBBI Regulations, 2016 stipulates that a Compromise or Arrangement proposed under section 230 of the 2013 Act shall be completed within ninety days of the order of Liquidation. Regulation 2B(2) provides that the time taken on Compromise or Arrangement, not exceeding ninety days, shall not be included in the Liquidation Period. 13. The window of ninety days under Regulation 2B(1) has been relaxed in fit cases, including by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in M/s. Prakash Oil Depot v. G. Madhusudhan Rao (Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.3O4 & 306 of 2025, dated 01.08.2025). The Supreme Court has also held that revival of the Company is of paramount importance even in Liquidation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the NCLT erred in assuming that there was no change in circumstances after the earlier rejection of the Scheme on 16.06.2026 and that its subsequent assignment of debt does not create any separate or independent right. Contrary to this finding, the assignor entity changed subsequent to 16.06.2026 from State Bank of India to Maximus ARC, which are altogether two different Creditors with two different Boards including different Commercial mandates. In essence, the assignment of the debt in favour of the respondent No.2/Maximus ARC cannot be treated as an inconsequential change or one which would merit a repeat rejection of the Scheme, similar to that of the order of 16.06.2026. 17. The consequent finding of the NCLT with regard to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the State Bank of India since 19.09.2023. Lastly, the Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount: Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors (2020) 8 SCC 531. The NCLT cannot substitute its wisdom for the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors. The Financial Stakeholder itself made an application before the NCLT since it is only the Stakeholder whose money is at stake. 20. Since the parties have relied on the order passed by this Court on 28.11.2025 in W.P.Nos.35044 and 35022 of 2025, it is also relevant that, as opposed to the earlier set of facts in those two Writ Petitions, there are no conditions imposed by the Stakeholders Consultation Committee in the present case. To ....