Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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