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 Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

Supreme Court: NCLT Cannot Refuse Admission of Application Under Section 7 of IBC in Case of Default, Clarifies Discretionary Powers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On May 11, 2023, Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, clarified the scope of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the discretionary powers of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in admitting applications. The judgment was delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

The case involved an application filed by Canara Bank under Section 7 of the IBC against M/s Kranthi Edifice Pvt. Ltd., a corporate debtor. The NCLT had admitted the application and declared a moratorium. The suspended director of the corporate debtor, M. Suresh Kumar Reddy, appealed against the NCLT's decision before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the NCLAT's decision, Reddy approached the Supreme Court.

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether NCLT had the discretion to refuse admission of an application under Section 7 of the IBC after establishing the existence of a default. The appellant argued that the NCLT could have refused to admit the application based on good reasons, as explained in the Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited case.

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions, held that once the NCLT is satisfied that a default has occurred, it has limited discretion to refuse admission of the application under Section 7 of the IBC. The court emphasized that non-payment of a part or instalment of the debt when it becomes due and payable would constitute a default. It clarified that if a debt is due and payable, the NCLT must admit the application, unless there are grounds to reject it based on incomplete documentation or other specific reasons.

The court referred to the Vidarbha Industries case, which discussed the discretionary powers of the NCLT under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC. It noted that the Vidarbha Industries case should not be read as taking a view contrary to the decisions in Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank and Another and E.S. Krishnamurthy and others v. Bharath Hi-Tecch Builders Private Limited. The court held that the view taken in the Innoventive Industries case still holds good.

In the present case, the court found that there was no merit in the appellant's appeal. It noted that the Corporate Debtor had committed a default, and the NCLT's decision to admit the application was justified. The court also considered the demand notice issued under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the acknowledgments made by the Corporate Debtor. It concluded that the NCLT had not erred in admitting the application.

Based on its findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there were no grounds to interfere with the NCLT's decision. The court ordered no costs in the matter.

Date of Judgment: May 11, 2023

Suresh Kumar Reddy vs Canara Bank & Ors.             

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/11-May-2023-M.-SURESH-KUMAR-REDDY-vs-CANRA-BANK.pdf"]

Latest Legal News