Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

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