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

Supreme Court Holds Secured Creditors Entitled to Rights and Protections in Insolvency Resolution Plans

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has provided a solution to a tricky legal issue related to the rights of secured creditors in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The case pertains to the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for the insolvent Corporate Debtor, Amtek Auto Ltd., which led to the dilution of the pledge agreement between the corporate debtor and one of its secured creditors, Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. The Supreme Court held that Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. should be treated as a secured creditor and be entitled to all the rights and obligations applicable to a secured creditor under Sections 52 and 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The Court examined the amended Section 30(2) of the IBC, which requires the resolution plan to protect the interests of operational creditors and financial creditors who have not voted in favour of the plan. It also noted that the existing precedents did not provide a clear solution to the issue of a secured creditor who is not a financial creditor or operational creditor.

The Court provided two options to address the issue. The first was to treat the secured creditor as a financial creditor to the extent of the estimated value of the pledged share on the date of commencement of the CIRP, and give it voting rights. However, this would require a reconsideration of the existing precedents. The second option was to treat the secured creditor as a secured creditor in terms of Section 52 read with Section 53 of the IBC, and give it the option to retain the security interest in the pledged shares and receive the sale proceeds in accordance with Rule 21-A of the Liquidation Process Regulations.

The Court clarified that the resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) would not be affected by its decision. It also rejected the argument of the respondents that the appellant had not objected to the earlier resolution plan and had acquiesced to its non-classification as a financial creditor in the CoC.

  Date of Decision: May 4, 2023                                                              

M/S VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LTD & ORS.   vs DINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/04-May-2023-VISTRA-ITCL-INDIA-LIMITED-VS-VISTARA-ITCL.pdf"]

Latest Legal News