Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High 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 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