Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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