SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Noida Special Economic Zone Authority – Appellant
Versus
Manish Agarwal & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5918-5919 of 2022
Decided On : 05-11-2024
Insolvency - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - IBC 2016 Sections 30, 31, 34(2)(d), 60(5) - The court upheld the NCLAT's decision on the approval of the Resolution Plan, emphasizing the primacy of the IBC provisions over SEZ regulations and the finality of the Committee of Creditors' decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant challenged the NCLAT's judgment regarding the approval of a Resolution Plan for a Corporate Debtor, claiming inadequate compensation and procedural violations during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated due to defaults in lease payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the NCLAT's approval of the Resolution Plan was justified, as the process adhered to the IBC provisions, and the Appellant's claims regarding statutory dues and valuation were not substantiated.
Issues: Whether the NCLAT erred in approving the Resolution Plan and dismissing the Appellant's claims regarding inadequate compensation and procedural violations in the CIRP.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the IBC provisions, particularly Sections 30 and 31, govern the approval of Resolution Plans, and the decisions of the Committee of Creditors are final and non-justiciable, barring statutory violations.
Result: The appeals are dismissed as devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. In the present Appeals challenge is to the Judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “NCLAT”) which were preferred by the Appellant, i.e., NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority, being the Operational Creditor (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) impugning the Order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority of National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as “NCLT”) approving the Resolution Plan as presented on the approval by the Committee of Creditors, and also the Order dated 27.11.2020 vide which an application preferred by the Appellant, challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan, stood rejected.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the Respondent No.02, i.e., Shree Bhoomika International Limited, being the Corporate Debtor (hereinafter referred to as “Corporate Debtor”) was sub-leased the Plot bearing No. 59-I admeasuring 16,100 square meters at NOIDA Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as “NSEZ”) by the Appellant, in capacity of lessee of the said land from the NOIDA Authority, vide Lease Deed dated 26.10.1995, and it was valid for a period of 15 years, i.e., up to 31.05.2010. It is the case of the Appellant that the Corporate Debtor had begun defaulting on lease payments in 1999, and moreover, there was no performance or activity on the said land since the year 2003-2004 leading to financial losses to the Government Exchequer, and same also being violative of the Special Economic Zone Rules and guidelines framed therein. Appellant has also made a reference to a Public Notice dated 06.02.2018 by the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund for sale of immovable and movable assets of the Corporate Debtor through an e-auction, fixing the total reserved price at INR 09.18 Crores.
3. In the light of the defaults committed by the Corporate Debtor, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) was initiated by the Appellant before the NCLT. While admitting the said application on 11.07.2019, an Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as “IRP”) was appointed. The Committee of Creditors, which comprised of the Sole Financial Creditor, being the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund – IDBI Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as “sole Financial Creditor”) was constituted by the IRP after making a public announcement on 17.07.2019 as per the prescribed procedure.
4. In pursuance thereto, the Appellant filed a claim of INR 6,29,18,121/- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and One Hundred Twenty One only) which was admitted by the Respondent No.01 – Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as “RP”) in entirety. Valuation of the Corporate Debtor was thereby conducted by two different valuers, and an average thereof was carried out, leading to the fixing of the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor at INR 04.25 Crores. The Appellant had put forth that the valuers had also observed that the valuations derived by them could be realised, subject to fulfilment of the rules of NSEZ and procedure of approval thereof.
5. The Resolution Plan dated 24.11.2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Resolution Plan”), which was prepared by the Respondent No. 03 – M/s Commodities Trading, being the Resolution Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “Resolution Applicant”) was put before the Committee of Creditors, which approved it in its 4th Meeting dated 06.01.2020.
6. An application was then filed under Sections 31(1) and 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC 2016”) before the NCLT by the RP, seeking an approval of the Resolution Plan on behalf of the Committee of Creditors. The same was allowed by NCLT vide Order dated 05.10.2020, granting only INR 50 Lakhs to the Appellant against its admitted claim of INR 06.29 Crores. Aggrieved, the Appellant put forth its objecti
Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others
Maharashtra Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh and Others
K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Others
Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others
Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another
DBS Bank Limited Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and Another
The court affirmed that the IBC provisions take precedence over other laws in insolvency matters, reinforcing the authority of the Committee of Creditors in approving Resolution Plans.
Resolution plan approved despite 99.92% haircut; unclaimed pre-CIRP claims extinguished upon section 31 approval; NCLT limits reliefs to IBC/Companies Act; new management shielded under section 32A; ....
Limited judicial review of CoC-approved resolution plan confined to Section 30(2) IBC compliance; commercial wisdom paramount.
The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving a resolution plan cannot be interfered with unless there is non-compliance with regulatory requirements.
The Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving resolution plans must be respected, and judicial review is limited to statutory compliance under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Approved resolution plans under the Insolvency Code extinguish claims not included, barring enforcement actions for pre-existing statutory dues.
The rejection of a Resolution Plan must comply with statutory requirements, and commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount, limiting the adjudicatory review.
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.