Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 938
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rohinton Fali Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
State Bank Of India - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Accord Life Spec Private Limited Through Director & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9036 of 2019
Decided On : 28-02-2020
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR, Mr. V.M. Kannan, Adv., Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv., for the Appellant; Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR, Ms. Sindhu T.P., Adv., Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Mukund P. Unny, adv., Mr. Bineesh K., Adv., Mr. Akshat Goel, AOR, Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR, Mr. Manoj Menon, Adv., Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Adv., Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon, Adv., Anindita Mitra, AOR, for the Respondent
Points Of Law : No provision in Code or Regulations has been brought to notice under which bid of any Resolution Applicant has to match liquidation value arrived at in manner provided in Clause 35 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations.
Headnote:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - Section 30(2) - Clause 35 - NCLT after a finding that under Section 30(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code together with principle of maximization of assets of corporate debtor, a resolution plan which is lesser than liquidation value cannot be accepted - As a matter of law, Court judgment has to be set aside in view of our recent judgment in Civil Appeal entitled Maharashtra Seamless Limited.
Finding of The Court :
No provision in Code or Regulations has been brought to our notice under which bid of any Resolution Applicant has to match liquidation value arrived at in manner provided in Clause 35 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. - Court point has been dealt with in case of Essar Steel (supra) - Court have quoted about relevant passages from court judgment.
Result : Appeal is Allowed
ORDER
1. Application for impleadment is dismissed as withdrawn.
2. The impugned judgment dated 13.11.2019 has remitted the matter to the NCLT after a finding that under Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code together with the principle of maximization of assets of the corporate debtor, a resolution plan which is lesser than liquidation value cannot be accepted.
3. As a matter of law, this judgment has to be set aside in view of our recent judgment dated 22.01.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 4242 of 2019 entitled Maharashtra Seamless Limited vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors. in which this Court has categorically held as under:
"26. No provision in the Code or Regulations has been brought to our notice under which the bid of any Resolution Applicant has to match liquidation value arrived at in the manner provided in Clause 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. This point has been dealt with in the case of Essar Steel (supra). We have quoted about the relevant passages from this judgment."
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the NCLAT is set aside.
