Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Order Approving Resolution Plan, Emphasizes Compliance with IBC Parameters and Proper Categorization of Creditors”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr. Brings into focus the nuanced application of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The Court’s decision to set aside the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order approving a resolution plan underscores the significance of adhering to the IBC’s procedural and substantive requirements.

The appeal arose from a dispute over land allotment and unpaid installments between the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Appellant) and M/s. JNC Construction (P) Ltd (the Corporate Debtor). The core issue revolved around the categorization of the Appellant as an operational creditor instead of a financial creditor, impacting their treatment in the CIRP.

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the IBC byprovisions and regulations governing CIRP. It observed that the resolution plan erroneously stated that the appellant did not submit a claim, leading to its improper categorization as an operational creditor. The Court highlighted, “It is necessary that the claim must have support from proof.” The judgment stressed the importance of correctly categorizing creditors and ensuring their rightful participation in the COC meetings.

The Court elucidated on the principles under the IBC, particularly focusing on Sections 30(2), 37, and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. It emphasized the need for resolution plans to accurately reflect claims, respect statutory charges, and ensure feasibility, especially when dealing with statutory authorities like the Appellant.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the NCLAT and NCLT orders. It directed that the resolution plan be sent back to the COC for reconsideration, ensuring compliance with the IBC’s principles and proper categorization of the appellant as a secured creditor.

Date of Decision: February 12, 2024

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News