CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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