SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., J.K. MAHESHWARI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
M/s. R.K. Industries (Unit-II) LLP – Appellant
Versus
M/s. H.R. Commercials Private Limited And Other – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7722 of 2021
And
Welspun Steel Resources Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s R.K. Industries (Unit II) LLP And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7731 of 2021
Decided on : 26-08-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeals and factual basis. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. litigation commenced against nclt's interim order. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. subsequent offers and stakeholder meetings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments from the appellant and liquidator. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. justification for proceeding with private sale. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. defending the method of asset sale. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. supporting arguments from third parties. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. judicial analysis and understanding of ibc provisions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. legislative intent and bankruptcy law reform. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. authority and powers of the liquidator. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 36) |
| 11. implementation of insolvency regulations. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 12. reviewing the decision-making process of the liquidator. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 13. final court observations regarding sale methodologies. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 14. discussion on commercial wisdom and judicial review. (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 15. reiterating the decision against interfering in commercial decisions. (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 16. final directions on handling asset liquidation. (Para 57 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. By this common judgment, we propose to decide both the appeals one filed by M/s. R.K. Industries (Unit-II) LLP (appellant in Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021 and respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021) and Welspun Steel Resources Private Limited1[For short ‘Welspun’] (appellant in Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021 and respondent No.7 in Appeal No.7722/2021) against the judgment dated 10th December, 2021 passed by the Appellate Authority, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi2[For short ‘NCLAT’] in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.)No.690 of 2021 filed by R.K. Industries under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 20163[For short ‘IBC’], assailing the order dated 16th August, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad)4[For short ‘NCLT’] in Interlocutory Application No.273 of 2021 (filed by the respondent No.1 -H.R. Commercial Private Limited, in IA No.698 of 2020 (filed by Liquidator) in Company Petition (IB) No.53 of 2017. For the sake of convenience, we propose to refer to the facts narrated in Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The facts of the case necessary to decide the present appeals are as follows.
2.1 Vide Agreement dated 26th February, 2008, Gujarat Maritime Board5[For short ‘GMB’] leased out a parcel of land to ABG Shipyard Limited6[For short ‘Corporate Debtor’] for a period of thirty years. On 1st August, 2017, ICICI Bank Limited moved an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process7[For short ‘CIRP’] against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the IBC read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules8[For short ‘IBC Rules’], 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority, NCLT, Ahmedabad [CP(IB) No.53/NCLT/AHM/2017] wherein, Mr. Sundaresh Bhat was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional9[For short ‘IRP’]. As no Resolution Plan was approved during the CIRP, an application was moved by the IRP for initiating liquidation proceedings. Vide order dated 25th April, 2019, the Adjudicating Authority ordered liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and appointed Mr. Sundaresh Bhat as the Liquidator. The respondent No.2 Liquidator made efforts to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor through an e-auction process, as contemplated in Sections 33 and 35 of the IBC read with Schedule-I of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 201610[For short ‘ Liquidation Regulations ’]. Five e-auctions were conducted by the respondent No.2 Liquidator to sell the consolidated assets of the Corporate Debtor on 17th September, 2019; 27th September, 2019; 22nd October, 2019; 11th November, 2019 and 5th August, 2020. When the first four e-auctions were unsuccess
The court upheld the Liquidator's commercial wisdom and procedural integrity in asset assignment, dismissing the application for lack of fair treatment evidence.
A review petition under Section 114 CPC must show an error apparent on record; the court affirmed the original order without finding grounds for alteration or fraud.
Secured creditors must notify their decision to relinquish security interest within the stipulated time; failure to do so results in assets being included in the liquidation estate.
A sale as a going concern under insolvency law preserves corporate identity but does not automatically exempt buyers from past liabilities unless expressly provided.
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.