SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
State Bank of India and Ors - Appellants
Versus
The Consortium of Mr Murari Lal Jalan and Mr Florian Fritsch and Anr - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos 3736-3737 of 2023, Civil Appeal Nos 4131-4134 of 2023, Civil Appeal Nos 6427-6428 of 2023
Decided On : 18-01-2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – Approval of Resolution Plan – NCLAT was not justified in holding that last tranche of Rs 150 Crores which was to be paid would be adjusted against PBG – SRA having deposited first two tranches each of Rs 100 Crores must comply with remaining obligation of depositing Rs 150 Crores (to make up a total payment of Rs 350 Crores) – Having by its conduct accepted terms set up by SBI it must be obligated to comply with entirety of its obligations – It must do so in strict compliance with time schedule set out hereafter – Timely resolution of insolvency cases is vital for sustaining effectiveness and credibility of insolvency framework – Concerted efforts and decisive actions are imperative to break deadlock and ensure expeditious implementation of resolution plan. (Paras 22 and 24)
Result : Appeals disposed of with observations.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.
1. This batch of appeals arises from three orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1[“NCLAT”]. A Resolution Plan was submitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20162[“IBC”] by a consortium of Murari Lal Jalan and Florian Fristch in respect of the Corporate Debtor (Jet Airways Limited). The Plan was voted upon and approved by the Committee of Creditors on 17 October 2020. The Resolution Professional then filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority to seek approval of the Resolution Plan. The Plan received the imprimatur of the Adjudicating Authority – the National Company Law Tribunal3[“NCLT”] - on 22 June 20214[“Plan Approval Order”].
2. Clause 7.6 of the Resolution Plan stipulates conditions for implementation. Clause 7.6.1 spells out the “conditions precedent”:
(a) Validation of AOP of the Corporate Debtor by DGCA & MoCA -The AOP of the Corporate Debtor shall have been validated by the DGCA, the MoCA and any other relevant Government Authority and grant of all other mandatory approvals to the Corporate Debtor to enable it to recommence flying operations (including commercial/ cargo operations) and related on-ground services.
(b) Submission and approval of the Business Plan to DGCA & MoCA The Business Plan of the Resolution Applicant shall have been submitted after the Approval Date to the DGCA and MoCA for their review, and approval. The Resolution Applicant agrees to modify its business plan to incorporate all reasonable changes required by the DGCA/ MoCA, which otherwise does not make the business unviable for the Resolution Applicant.
(c) Slots Allotment Approval The DGCA and MoCA shall have approved the reinstatement of all the suspended slots (including the bilateral rights and traffic rights) back to Jet Airways/ Corporate Debtor. The slots (along with related bilateral rights and traffic rights) can be allotted to the Corporate Debtor gradually as per its Business Plan with immediate slots allotment approval (along with related bilateral rights and traffic rights) for sectors on which Jet 2.0 proposes to recommence operations after the Effective Date.
(d) International Traffic Rights Clearance The Corporate Debtor shall have received the International Traffic Rights Clearance in compliance with Applicable Laws.
(e) Demerger -The Scheme filed as part of this Resolution Plan shall have been approved under Applicable Laws and the Demerged Employees shall have demerged from the Corporate Debtor to AGSL along with all their past dues, liabilities and outstanding's with effect from the Approval Date, without the requirement of any further consent or approval of any other stakeholder of AGSL (since we understand that AGSL currently does not have any creditor) or any stakeholder of the Corporate Debtor (including existing or past employee or workmen or employees' unions of the Corporate Debtor).”
3. Clause 7.6.4 contains a stipulation for “automatic withdrawal”:
Timely resolution of insolvency cases is vital for sustaining effectiveness and credibility of insolvency framework.
The adjustment of a Performance Bank Guarantee against a tranche payment is impermissible under the IBC, 2016, leading to liquidation if the Resolution Plan is not timely implemented.
The court ruled that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rendered the Resolution Plan invalid, necessitating liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
The court emphasized compliance with mandatory timelines and statutory provisions during insolvency resolutions, finding NCLT failures in approving a plan, ruling it invalid and initiating liquidatio....
The approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is binding on all stakeholders, contingent on compliance with statutory obligations and financial guidelines, ensuring the v....
Resolution plan remanded for non-disclosure of financial distress by applicant and impermissible PBG adjustment; guarantee clause valid post full payment via subrogation; Adjudicating Authority may i....
The court held that upon approval of the resolution plan under the IBC, all pending claims not included in the plan stand extinguished, thus protecting the successful resolution applicant from any un....
Resolution plan approved by CoC with 100% voting via commercial wisdom upheld if compliant with Section 30(2); judicial review limited to statutory conformity, not interference in business decisions.....
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.