Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Allows Withdrawal of Insolvency Proceedings Before Constitution of Committee of Creditors: "NCLT Fell in Error," Says Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the right to withdraw insolvency proceedings before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Court emphasized that once a settlement has been reached between the parties prior to the formation of the CoC, the withdrawal application should be allowed immediately, rather than prolonging the process. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath, rectified the error made by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in rejecting the withdrawal application and clarified the applicability of Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) Regulations.

The Court stated, "Once the parties had settled the dispute even before the CoC had been constituted, the application ought to have been allowed then and there rather than await the other creditors to jump into the fray and allow the IRP to proceed further."

The Court also addressed the plea of alternative remedy, stating that it is not an absolute bar unless specifically barred by statute. It noted that substantial time had passed since the Supreme Court entertained the Special Leave Petition (SLP) in 2021, and delaying the withdrawal of proceedings would frustrate the very objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Regarding the violation of the moratorium, the Court clarified that even if a transaction took place from the account of the Corporate Debtor (CD) after the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), it could be considered a wrongful transaction and recovered under Section 66 of the IBC in subsequent proceedings.

Addressing concerns about multiple claims of Operational Creditors (OCs), the Court affirmed that the rights of other creditors would not be affected if the settlement with the OC in question is accepted and the proceedings are allowed to be withdrawn.

The Court also examined the issue of expenses incurred by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP), noting that such amounts can be recovered through the same proceedings under Clause 7 of Regulation 30A of the IBBI Regulations.

Furthermore, the Court held that Regulation 30A of the IBBI Regulations, which provides a mechanism for the disposal of withdrawal applications, is binding on the NCLT. It stated, "The NCLT committed an error in holding that Regulation 30A would have no binding effect. This would amount to defeating the very purpose of substituting Regulation 30A in IBBI Regulations."

The judgment cited several previous cases, including Swiss Ribbons, Kamal K. Singh, and Ashok G. Rajani, to support its reasoning and emphasized the need for timely resolution of insolvency matters to uphold the objectives of the IBC.

The Supreme Court's decision allows the withdrawal application to be allowed under Section 12A of the IBC, even before the constitution of the CoC. The Court directed the NCLT to take up the settlement application and decide it in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.

Date of Decision: March 28, 2023

ABHISHEK SINGH   VS HUHTAMAKI PPL LTD. & ANR.                               

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/28-Mar-2023-Abhishek-Vs-HUHTAMAKI-PPL-LTD^.pdf"]

Latest Legal News