Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court 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 Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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