High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

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