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 Sets Aside NCLAT and NCLT Orders in ACIL Insolvency Case, Upholds CoC’s Commercial Wisdom

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, overturned the decisions of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the matter of Ramkrishna Forgings Limited v. Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Professional of ACIL Limited & Anr. The apex court’s bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, allowed the appeal filed by Ramkrishna Forgings Limited, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial intervention in commercial decisions made during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 

In its judgment, the Supreme Court observed, “The moot question involved is the extent of the jurisdiction and powers of the Adjudicating Authority to go on the issue of revaluation.” The Court highlighted that the Adjudicating Authority’s jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is strictly structured by the provisions of the Code, particularly under Sections 30 and 31. The Court noted, “The jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority cannot extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom.”

The case revolved around the insolvency resolution of ACIL Limited, a prominent manufacturer of precision engineering and automobile components. The resolution plan proposed by Ramkrishna Forgings Limited had been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) but was kept in abeyance by the NCLT, which directed a re-valuation of the corporate debtor’s assets. This decision was later upheld by the NCLAT.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscored the supremacy of the commercial wisdom of the CoC, stating that “the CoC’s decision-making process in approving Resolution Plans is not subject to unnecessary judicial scrutiny and intervention.” The judgment also clarified the role of the Official Liquidator in valuation, stating that their involvement for re-valuation is not aligned with the Code’s framework, which has a specific mechanism for valuation under CIRP Regulations.

Date of Decision: 21st November 2023

 

RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED VS RAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF ACIL LIMITED & ANR.

 

Latest Legal News