Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Resolution Applicant Eligibility in Corporate Insolvency: former director/ promotor of the corporate...
    Challenges in corporate insolvency, particularly when dealing with contract terminations and arbitra...
    Equality in Financial Creditor Status: The Supreme Court's Ruling in regarding the status of home bu...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Power of NCLT/NCLAT vis-à-vis writ jurisdiction of the high court.
    Limitation Act and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankr...
    Law of Limitation - Insolvency Proceedings
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility: former promoters not automatically disqualified under Section 29A; clause-specific disqualifiers control.
    Whether a former promoter or director is ineligible under Section 29A turned on clause-specific disqualifiers rather than promoter status alone; the tribunal found no evidence that the statutory disqualifying conditions, including account classification as non-performing, applied to the applicant, and emphasized that eligibility requires a fact-specific application of the provision's clauses.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Wrongful invocation of bank guarantees not upheld where arbitration covers claims; liquidator may refile under insolvency law.
    The appellate tribunal found the liquidator's claims, including allegations of wrongful invocation of bank guarantees, were encompassed by pending arbitration and upheld deletion of the concessionaire from the insolvency-era causative-misconduct application, while permitting the liquidator to file a fresh insolvency application should subsequent arbitration facts necessitate separate action.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Financial Creditor Status: Home buyers must receive equal treatment in IBC resolution plans irrespective of RERA remedies.
    The Court held that the statutory explanation deeming amounts raised from allottees as having the commercial effect of borrowing brings home buyers within the class of financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC; it disapproved any subdivision treating buyers who pursued RERA remedies as a separate subclass, finding such differential treatment to be inequitable and violative of Article 14, and directed equal treatment of allottees in resolution plan consideration.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction protects review where specialised tribunals act beyond statutory powers; tribunals may only inquire into fraud.
    Writ jurisdiction remains available to correct a tribunal acting without statutory power; NCLT lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate MMDR Act lease disputes, so a writ challenging its order was justified. NCLT/NCLAT may inquire into allegations of fraud in CIRP, but they cannot adjudicate substantive statutory or quasi judicial disputes that require judicial review of administrative action.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Acknowledgement of debt extends limitation for IBC filings; recovery certificate or decree creates fresh cause of action to initiate CIRP.
    An acknowledgment in writing by a corporate debtor of a subsisting liability restarts the limitation period for initiating CIRP; a final judgment, decree or a recovery certificate, if dues remain unpaid, gives rise to a fresh cause of action permitting a financial creditor to initiate insolvency proceedings within the applicable limitation period measured from the date of that judgment, decree or certificate. Limitation questions are mixed fact and law issues requiring pleaded facts and evidence, and pleadings in an insolvency petition may be amended or supplemented when appropriate.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Suspension of limitation: moratorium under the insolvency code halts limitation, prioritising resolution before limitation resumes post-resolution.
    Section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code suspends the running of limitation for as long as a company is under the moratorium imposed by Section 14, and this suspension should be read in harmony with the Resolution Professional's duty under Section 25(2)(b). Insolvency shifts control from the company's management to the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors, who focus on resolution rather than litigation, and limitation resumes when the company emerges from insolvency.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Resolution Plan Approvals: The Supreme Court's Clarification on NCLT and NCLAT's Jurisdiction in Insolvency Resolution.

      14 February, 2024

      Contents
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of Case Law

      Reported as:

      2023 (11) TMI 910 - Supreme Court

      Introduction: In a defining judgment, the Supreme Court of India elaborated on the jurisdictional boundaries of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). This analysis ventures into the intricate details of the case, focusing on how and where the NCLT and NCLAT issued their orders, leading to a crucial legal discourse on the sanctity of the Committee of Creditors' (CoC) commercial wisdom and the precise extent of judicial review permissible under the IBC.

      Background: The core of the dispute emanated from a resolution plan submitted for the insolvency resolution of a company, which triggered a debate on the valuation of the company's assets and the commercial decisions made by the CoC. The NCLT, in its order dated 01.09.2021, and the NCLAT, through its judgment dated 19.01.2022, directed a revaluation of assets, raising significant questions about their jurisdiction and the scope of their authority to alter or influence the CoC's commercial decisions.

      Analysis of Issues:

      1. NCLT and NCLAT's Orders: The NCLT's directive for asset revaluation stemmed from an application for the approval of a resolution plan. The tribunal's order placed the resolution plan in abeyance, mandating a reassessment of the corporate debtor's asset value. The NCLAT upheld this directive, reinforcing the call for a detailed asset valuation, which became a pivotal issue leading to the Supreme Court's intervention.

      2. Jurisdictional Overreach: The crux of the Supreme Court's analysis centered on whether the NCLT and NCLAT had overstepped their jurisdiction by mandating asset revaluation. The Court scrutinized the extent of the tribunals' authority under the IBC, especially in relation to interfering with the CoC's commercial judgments.

      3. Commercial Wisdom of the CoC: A significant aspect of the discussion revolved around the principle that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and generally not amenable to judicial review. The Supreme Court emphasized that the IBC vests the CoC with the ultimate discretion to evaluate and approve resolution plans based on their assessment of the corporate debtor's value and the feasibility of the proposed resolution plan.

      Discussion and Findings:

      The Supreme Court's at the end of para 30 has noted that, "At the cost of repetition, nobody had moved before the NCLT or raised any objection challenging the Resolution Plan pending approval. Even the NCLAT has only indicated that when “figures of crores” are emerging stage-wise, “then there is no harm to look at the Expert opinion”, which the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT in this case has asked for".

      The Supreme Court's observation at the end of paragraph 30 underscores a critical aspect of judicial intervention in the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Court noted that there had been no objections or challenges to the resolution plan pending approval before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) by any party. This absence of objections signifies the unchallenged acceptance of the resolution plan by the stakeholders involved, highlighting the autonomy and the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in making decisions regarding the insolvency resolution.

      Furthermore, the Supreme Court's reference to the NCLAT's remark about considering expert opinions when "figures of crores" are involved underlines the prudence of seeking specialized expertise in complex financial assessments. However, the Court clarifies that such an approach does not inherently mandate revaluation or reassessment of assets as directed by the NCLT in this case. Instead, the emphasis is on the limited scope of judicial review concerning the commercial decisions taken by the CoC. The NCLT's request for revaluation, as indicated, was not rooted in any substantial objection raised during the approval process, which suggests an overreach of its adjudicatory role as envisioned under the IBC.

      The Supreme Court's observation highlights the principle that the adjudicatory authorities (NCLT and NCLAT) should refrain from interfering in the commercial wisdom of the CoC, especially in the absence of any objections or challenges to the resolution plan. This restraint is crucial to maintaining the sanctity of the CoC's decisions and ensuring a smooth and efficient insolvency resolution process, free from unnecessary judicial intervention. The observation underscores the importance of respecting the specialized knowledge and decisions of financial creditors in resolving corporate insolvency, while also recognizing the role of expert opinions in assisting the adjudication process when significant financial stakes are involved.

      Conclusion:

      The Supreme Court's decision to set aside the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT was rooted in a fundamental principle of the IBC: the limited scope of judicial intervention in the CoC's commercial decisions. The Court elucidated that the NCLT and NCLAT, by mandating a revaluation of assets, had unduly interfered with the commercial prerogatives of the CoC. This interference was deemed beyond their jurisdiction, highlighting a misapprehension of their role as adjudicating bodies under the IBC.

      This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court reasserts the autonomy of the CoC in the insolvency resolution process, delineating the boundaries of judicial review by the NCLT and NCLAT. By clarifying the jurisdictional limits of these tribunals, the Court has reinforced the IBC's intent to facilitate swift and efficient insolvency resolutions, ensuring that the commercial wisdom of the CoC remains supreme. The decision underscores the necessity of adhering to the statutory framework of the IBC, safeguarding the resolution process from unwarranted judicial overreach, and maintaining the balance between judicial oversight and commercial discretion.

       


      Full Text:

      2023 (11) TMI 910 - Supreme Court

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax