SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 497

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
K.N. Rajakumar – Appellant
Versus
V. Nagarajan and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1792, 2901 of 2021
Decided On : 15-09-2021

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Ritin Rai, S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Kartik Malhotra, Abhilasha Shrawat, Aarthi Rajan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Caveator-in-person, Advocate
For the R-1/applicant in 5.1 :KV Vishwanathan, Arvindh Pandian, Balaji Srinivasan, Garima Jain, Pallavi Sengupta, Aakriti Priya, Mohammed Shahrukh, Prateek Yadav, Lakshmi Rao, Sandeep Kumar Ambalavanan, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) One of principal objects of IBC is providing for revival of Corporate Debtor and to make it a going concern. Every attempt has to be first made to revive concern and make it a going concern, liquidation being last resort.
(2) Court should not go into academic issues and seek to interpret provisions of law when it is not necessary for deciding issues in appeal(s).

Headnote:

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 8 – Companies Act, 2013 – Section 271(1)(a) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 – Regulation 16 – Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Adjudicating Authority is entitled to withdraw application admitted under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10, on an application made by applicant with approval of 90% voting share of Committee of Creditors – Resolution of CoC approving withdrawal of CIRP proceedings was supported by requisite voting majority. NCLT after considering resolution passed by Committee of Creditors in its meeting has allowed application filed by suspended Director of Corporate Debtor – One of principal objects of IBC is providing for revival of Corporate Debtor and to make it a going concern – Every attempt has to be first made to revive concern and make it a going concern, liquidation being last resort – Corporate Debtor has already settled issue with erstwhile financial creditors who have resolved to withdraw CIRP proceedings and by virtue of withdrawal of CIRP proceedings, Corporate Debtor now is a going concern – Appeals disposed of with directions. (Paras 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – Parameters – Court should not go into academic issues and seek to interpret provisions of law when it is not necessary for deciding issues in appeal(s). (Para 11)

Facts of the case:

Appellant D. Ramjee in Civil Appeal No.2901 of 2021, who is an ex-employee of M/s Aruna Hotels Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) has approached this Court being aggrieved by the resolution passed in the 8th Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting dated 25.5.2021; the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (‘NCLT’ or ‘Adjudicating Authority’) dated 4.6.2021 thereby permitting withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) in respect of Corporate Debtor; and order passed by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT dated 6.7.2021 thereby closing the proceedings initiated by D. Ramjee. Civil Appeal No. 1792 of 2021 is filed by K.N. Rajakumar, suspended Director of Corporate Debtor (respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.2901 of 2021 filed by D. Ramjee) thereby challenging the order passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench (NCLAT’) dated 30.4.2021 dismissing the appeal filed by K.N. Rajakumar challenging order dated 22.4.2021 passed by NCLT vide which NCLT had directed the Resolution Professional (‘RP’) to convene a meeting of CoC consisting of members who constituted CoC originally in the year 2017, soon after the order of admission of CIRP was passed by NCLT.

Findings of Court:

NCLT vide order dated 6.7.2021, passed in the application (I.A.No.540/CHE/2021) filed by D. Ramjee, has rightly held that from the date of the order dated 4.6.2021, after withdrawal of CIRP proceedings, the powers and management of the Corporate Debtor were handed over to Directors of the Corporate Debtor and from that date RP and CoC in relation to the Corporate Debtor had become functus officio. NCLT has rightly disposed of the application filed by D. Ramjee having rendered infructuous.

Result : Appeals disposed of.

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope of withdrawal of CIRP under Section 12A of the IBC and the role of the CoC voting with 90% approval?

What is the proper interpretation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code objectives in relation to revival of a corporate debtor versus liquidation?

What are the implications of a CoC resolution to withdraw CIRP on the powers of RP and the status of the corporate debtor as a going concern?


JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment and order.

2. The appellant-D. Ramjee in Civil Appeal No. 2901 of 2021, who is an ex-employee of M/s Aruna Hotels Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporate Debtor’) has approached this Court being aggrieved by the resolution passed in the 8th Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred to as ‘CoC’) meeting dated 25.5.2021, the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLT’ or ‘the Adjudicating Authority’) dated 4.6.2021 thereby permitting withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRP’) in respect of the Corporate Debtor and the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT dated 6.7.2021 thereby closing the proceedings initiated by D. Ramjee.

3. Civil Appeal No. 1792 of 2021 is filed by K.N. Rajakumar, suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor (respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 2901 of 2021 filed by D. Ramjee) thereby challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLAT’) dated 30.4.2021 dismissing the appeal filed by K.N. Rajakumar challenging the order dated 22.4.2021 passed by NCLT vide which NCLT had directed the Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as ‘RP’) to convene a meeting of CoC consisting of the members who constituted CoC originally in the year 2017, soon after the order of admission of CIRP was passed by NCLT.

4. The facts giving rise to the present appeals have been taken from Civil Appeal No. 2901 of 2021 and are as under:

    The Corporate Debtor was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on 9.9.1960. It had started various businesses like sugar, distillery, flour mill, chemical unit, finance company, a 4star hotel etc. in Chennai, but as on date owns only a hotel in Chennai. The hotel business of the Corporate Debtor was shut down for more than 7 years.

    D. Ramjee joined the Corporate Debtor as a Junior Assistant on 11.5.1964. Since D. Ramjee was not receiving salary regularly, he sought to get relieved from the services with effect from 30.9.2006 and sought for settlement of his salary dues. However, it is his case that as the Corporate Debtor requested him to continue in the service, he continued to do so on a salary which was much less than the one he was entitled to. On 31.5.2013, D. Ramjee officially retired after serving for 49 years.

    In February, 2015, the Management of the Corporate Debtor was taken over by one Subasri Realty Limited, thereby acquiring the shareholding of the earlier promoters, M. Sivaram and his family. According to D. Ramjee, the new Management disowned itself from the admissions of previous management pertaining to settlement of arrears of salary.

    On 27.2.2017, Ramjee issued a Demand Notice under Section 271(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IBC’) calling upon the Corporate Debtor to pay dues of outstanding salary amounting to Rs. 2,60,68,883/- along with interest at the rate of 12%.

    On failure of the Corporate Debtor to comply with the notice, D. Ramjee filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC, being C.P. No. 478 of 2017 on 3.4.2017 before NCLT. Two other employees of the Corporate Debtor had also filed applications under Section 9 of the IBC. Vide order dated 13.6.2017, the Adjudicating Authority admitted D. Ramjee’s application under Section 9 of the IBC and initiated CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. One P. Sriram was appointed as interim RP and moratorium was declared.

    Being aggrieved by the order passed by NCLT dated 13.6.2017, the Corporate Debtor filed an appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 87 of 2017 before NCLAT. NCLAT vide order dated 2.8.2017 allowed the said appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor and set aside the order dated 13.6.2017 passed by NCLT. NCLAT had also recorded

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top