Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court 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 Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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