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

2024 Supreme(SC) 60

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

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv.
For the CA 3892/23 : Mr. Mayan Prasad, Adv. Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, AOR Ms. Rashi Rampal, Adv. Ms. Nitika Grover, Adv. Mr. Sahil Khan, Adv.
For the CA 3736-37/23, 4131-34, 6427-28/23: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Devesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Isha Virmani, Adv. Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv. Ms. Mansi Kapur, Adv. Mrs. Shubhra Kapur, Adv.
For the CA D 27067/23 : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aashish Vats, Adv. Mr. Harish Nadda, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Anant Singh, Adv. Ms. Srishty Kaul, AOR Mr. Rajat Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Arveena Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shruti Pandey, Adv. Mr. Aashish Vats, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sinha, Adv. Mr. Avinash B. Amarnath, AOR Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghav Shankar, Adv. Mr. Rajendra Barot, Adv. Mr. Dhirajkumar Totala, Adv. Mr. Suharsh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Vinay Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Mehul Bachhawat, Adv. Mr. Ankit Pal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Nisarg Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rohini Thyagarajan, Adv. Mr. Shakti Vardhan, Adv. Ms. Amiy Shukla, AOR Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Negi, Adv. Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Ms. Ekta Choudhary, AOR Mr. Divyank Dutt Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Aditi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Devesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv. Mrs. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Petrushka Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Mridul Yadav, Adv. Ms. Tahira Kathpalia, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Timely resolution of insolvency cases is vital for sustaining effectiveness and credibility of insolvency framework.

Headnote:

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”:

    “7.6.1. Conditions Precedent -The obligation of the Resolution Applicant to re-commence operations as an aviation company, being the business proposed to be acquired is subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions after the Approval Date ("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”:

    “Automatic Withdrawal -The Resolution Applicant is confident of completing all the Conditions Precedent (as set out in Clause 7.6.1 above) within 90 (ninety) days from the Approval Date. In the unlikely event that all the Conditions Precedent cannot be fulfilled within 90 (ninety) days, the Resolution Applicant takes the responsibility of completing the outstanding Conditions Precedent at the earliest and seeks to extend the Conditions Precedent fulfilment period by another term of maximum 180 (one hundred and eighty) days. If all the Conditions Precedent are not fulfilled within such period (i.e. 270 (two hundred and seventy) days

    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 Back to top