Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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