Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Revised plan bypasses CoC: Supreme Court flags material irregularity in direct presentation to Adjudicating Authority

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 3 May 2023, Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgement in "Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorized Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors." has upheld the disapproval of a resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal India Ltd for the debt-ridden Essar Steel, citing various reasons including ineligibility of the resolution applicant, and directed the reconsideration of a settlement offer by the promoter. The revised plan was directly presented to the Adjudicating Authority without presenting it to the CoC. This amounts to a deviation in the process and cannot be ignored or condoned. The approval of the plan without the final approval of the CoC amounts to a material irregularity.

The Court examined various aspects of the case, including the valuation process, non-compliance with procedural requirements, eligibility of the resolution applicant, treatment of related parties, settlement offers of the promoter, and subsequent events. The Court's decision and directions can be summarized as follows:

Disapproval of the resolution plan: The Court upheld the NCLAT's disapproval of the resolution plan due to the ineligibility of the resolution applicant and the failure to present the revised plan to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for approval before seeking approval from the Adjudicating Authority.

Rejected findings of NCLAT: The Court set aside certain findings of the NCLAT related to the valuation process, non-compliance with procedural provisions, and increase in the fees of the resolution professional, as they were not considered material to the process.

Eligibility of the resolution applicant: The Court disagreed with the NCLAT's finding that the resolution applicant was ineligible under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, and held that the provision was not applicable in this case.

Treatment of related parties: The Court rejected the NCLAT's application of non-discrimination principles to the treatment of related parties in the resolution plan. It held that the provision of payment to related parties in the plan was subject to the commercial wisdom of the CoC and not a mandatory requirement.

Settlement offers of the promoter: The Court disagreed with the NCLAT's finding that the settlement offer of the promoter was not considered by the CoC. It held that the settlement proposal was properly considered and rejected by the CoC, and the process was not suffering from any illegality.The Court left open the consideration of the fresh settlement proposal of the promoter, approved by the CoC, for the Adjudicating Authority to examine. It directed the Adjudicating Authority to consider all relevant aspects, including the justification for invoking Section 12-A after the fresh invitation for Expressions of Interest (EOIs) and the receipt of resolution plans.

"Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorized Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/03-May-2023-M.K.-RAJAGOPALAN-Vs-Perisamy.pdf"]

Latest Legal News