SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
SREI Equipment Finance Limited & Ors – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4230-4234 OF 2020
Decided On : 01-03-2021
Companies Act, 2013 - Section 434(1)© - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2) and 13(4) - Company - Winding up - Decreed - A winding up petition, being Company Petition No filed by Respondent No.3 herein, M/s Action Barter Pvt. Ltd. [“Action Barter”] against SRUIL, by a conditional order dated stood admitted on failure of SRUIL to deposit INR 5.90 crore - Appeal instituted by SRUIL against this order was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on, whereas appeal instituted by Action Barter was allowed vide same order and amount to be deposited by SRUIL was enhanced from INR 5.90 crore to INR 18 crore - Vide order dated Court disposed of SLP© No. filed by SRUIL, after recording a statement by the counsel for SRUIL that SRUIL would deposit INR three crore same day, and balance of INR 15 crore within six months from date of order - Parties then filed consent terms before Single Judge of Bombay High Court – Held, Court may also add that on facts of this case, though no application for transfer of the winding up proceeding pending in the Bombay High Court has been filed, Bombay High Court has itself, by orders dated - Any “suppression” of the winding up proceeding would, therefore, not be of any effect in deciding a Section 7 petition on basis of provisions contained in IBC - Equally, it cannot be said that any subterfuge has been availed of for same reason that Section 7 is an independent proceeding that stands by itself - As has been correctly pointed out by Shri Sinha, a discretionary jurisdiction under fifth proviso to Section 434(1)© of Companies Act, 2013 cannot prevail over the undoubted jurisdiction of NCLT under IBC once the parameters of Section 7 and other provisions of the IBC have been met - Appeal is dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses that Section 238 of the Code overrides other laws in independent Section 7/Section 9 proceedings (referencing actions like Action Ispat, Forech, and Jaipur Metals) (!) (!) (!) . - It clarifies that Section 7 proceedings under the IBC are independent and can be initiated even after winding up orders, and transfer of winding up proceedings to NCLT is possible under certain conditions (Kaledonia; sections 434(1)(c) fifth proviso) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court outlines that a winding up petition can be transferred to the NCLT to be resolved under the IBC, particularly before irreversible steps, keeping focus on revival rather than liquidation where possible (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision references the primacy of the IBC over the Sick Industrial Companies Act and related acts in overriding circumstances (Swiss Ribbons; Forech; Jaipur Metals) (!) (!) (!) . - It notes that a secured creditor may realize security outside winding up, affecting proceedings but not extinguishing the independent IBC route when applicable (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
R.F. NARIMAN, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 07.02.2020, as corrected by order dated 21.09.2020, by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [“NCLAT”]. The Appellant is an operational creditor of Respondent No.2 herein – M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited [“SRUIL”], the company under winding up – and has a decree dated 07.10.2015 in its favour passed by the Bombay High Court in Summary Suit No.626 of 2014. Vide order dated 06.10.2016, the Division Bench stayed the order dated 07.10.2015 and directed SRUIL to deposit INR14 crore with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court or furnish a bank guarantee for the same, failing which the stay order would get vacated. The said appeal is pending as on date. We are also informed that an execution application, being Execution Application (L) No.934 of 2016 was filed by the Appellant before the Bombay High Court and the same is also pending as on date.
2. Sometime in 2015, the Appellant had filed a winding up petition, being Company Petition No.1039 of 2015 against SRUIL before the Bombay High Court, the same being pending as on date.
3. A winding up petition, being Company Petition No.1066/2015 filed by Respondent No.3 herein, M/s Action Barter Pvt. Ltd. [“Action Barter”] against SRUIL, by a conditional order dated 05.10.2016, stood admitted on the failure of SRUIL to deposit INR 5.90 crore. The appeal instituted by SRUIL against this order was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 17.01.2017, whereas the appeal instituted by Action Barter was allowed vide the same order and the amount to be deposited by SRUIL was enhanced from INR 5.90 crore to INR 18 crore. Vide order dated 27.02.2017, this Court disposed of SLP(C) No.5849/2017 filed by SRUIL, after recording a statement by the counsel for SRUIL that SRUIL would deposit INR three crore the same day, and the balance of INR 15 crore within six months from the date of the order. The parties then filed consent terms before the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on 22.03.2017, wherein Action Barter agreed to accept a sum of INR 15 crore, payable in instalments. Apart from the payment of the first instalment of INR 25 lakh, no further instalment was paid, as a result of which the winding up petition stood revived on 24.08.2017. On 17.04.2018, the provisional liquidator took over the physical possession of the assets of SRUIL.
4. While this winding up petition was pending, Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. [“Indiabulls”], a secured creditor of SRUIL, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [“IBC”] before the National Company Law Tribunal [“NCLT”], which was dismissed by the NCLT vide order dated 18.05.2018 as being not maintainable as a winding up petition had already been admitted by the Bombay High Court. An appeal to the NCLAT suffered a similar fate as the appeal was dismissed on 30.05.2018. However, on 06.08.2018, the Supreme Court admitted a Civil Appeal from the NCLAT order, which is pending as on date.
5. An application filed by Indiabulls for the following relief:
“The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Provisional Liquidator to handover physical possession of the said Mortgaged Property i.e. all the pieces and parcels of land bearing C.S. Nos. 288, 289 (part), 1/1540 (part), 2/1540 (part) and 3/1540 (part), collectively forming Plot Nos.5B and 6 admeasuring approximately 28,409.57 square meters situated at Worli Estate, Lower Parel Division, Mumbai to the Secured Creditor herein, in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 …”
resulted in an order dated 07.02.2019 by which the learned Company Judge allowed the aforesaid application in favour of Indiabulls. Indiabulls is a secured creditor who stood outside the winding up, and who sought to realise its security outside such winding up procee
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.