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

Supreme Court Grants Relief to Company Unable to Deposit Settlement Amount during Insolvency Moratorium

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has granted relief to M/s. Shekhar Resorts Limited, a hospitality services company, after it was unable to deposit the settlement amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 during an insolvency moratorium. The Court emphasized that no person should be left remediless and highlighted the impossibility of the appellant making the payment due to the legal impediment caused by the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). "No person should be left remediless, and the Court cannot compel a person to do something impossible."

The appellant company had approached the High Court seeking directions to consider its case under the Scheme of 2019. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that it could not issue a direction contrary to the Scheme and that the Designated Committee, responsible for processing applications under the Scheme, no longer existed.

Justice M.R. Shah, delivering the judgment, observed, "The appellant cannot be punished for not doing something which was impossible for it to do... No person should be left remediless, and the Court cannot compel a person to do something impossible." The Court acknowledged the legal disability faced by the appellant during the moratorium, which prohibited any payments, and emphasized that the inability to deposit the settlement amount should not render the appellant remediless.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that even after the expiry of the Scheme, the Designated Committees continued to function manually in cases where courts set aside rejections after the Scheme period. It also mentioned circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), allowing for manual processing of declarations under the Scheme in such cases.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment, and directed the appropriation of the payment already deposited by the appellant towards the settlement dues under the Scheme of 2019. The appellant will also be issued a discharge certificate.

This judgment highlights the Court's commitment to ensuring that individuals and entities facing legal impediments are not unfairly penalized and provides clarity on the application of the Scheme in cases involving insolvency moratoriums.

Date of Decision: January 5, 2023

M/s. Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News