Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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