IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, J.
Sumitra Devi Shah & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Tata Steel BSL Ltd. - Respondent
G.A. No. 3 of 2012, 3369 of 2012; Civil Suit No. 54 of 2012
Decided On : 22-01-2021
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Recovery of Price of Goods Sold and Delivered - Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules - Section 31(1) of the Code of 2016
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered. The defendant raised a defense based on the approval of a Resolution Plan under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which was upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim did not survive the approval of the Resolution Plan, as per the precedent set in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Gupta and others. The defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend the suit based on the substantial defense established.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's claim was valid after the approval of the Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 31(1) of the Code of 2016, which establishes that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors, it shall be binding on all stakeholders, including creditors.
Final Decision: The application of the plaintiffs was dismissed without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Debangsu Basak, J. - In a suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff has applied for a final judgement and decree under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, during the pendency of the suit, State Bank of India filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi. In such proceedings, a Resolution Plan had been prepared and approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Such Resolution Plan had been challenged in appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Such appeal had been dismissed. Consequently, in view of ( Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Gupta and others, (2020) 8 SCC 531) , the claim of the plaintiff does not survive the approval of the Resolution Plan. He has submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and that, the application should be dismissed.
3. The original plaintiff had filed the instant suit on February 7, 2012. The original plaintiff had died on May 6, 2017. Consequent upon such death, and consequent upon an application for amendment, the original plaintiff had been substituted by the present plaintiffs in terms of the orders dated July 3, 2018 and August 28, 2018. The name of the defendant had changed to the present name and consequent upon such change of name, amendment to the cause title of the plaint was allowed by an order dated January 29, 2019.
4. During the pendency of the suit, State Bank of India had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi being (IB)-201 (PB)/2017. The Adjudicating Authority had admitted such petition and an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed on July 26, 2017. The Adjudicating Authority had also passed an order of moratorium on such date. On July 26, 2017, the Interim Resolution Professional had made a public announcement in Form A under Regulation VI of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 inviting claims from all the operational, financial and other creditors of the defendant. The pendency of the insolvency proceedings and the public announcement made by the Interim Resolution Professional had been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court in the suit. By an order dated August 17, 2017, the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to observe that, the proposed substituted plaintiffs may apply before the National Company Law Tribunal for appropriate reliefs. No claims had been lodged by the plaintiffs before the interim Resolution Professional or the National Company Law Tribunal.
5. On October 7, 2017, the Resolution Professional had made a public announcement under Section 25 (2)(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 inviting Resolution Plans from prospective resolution applicants to submit their proposals. Tata Steel Limited had submitted its Resolution Plan on February 3, 2018. The Committee of Creditors of the defendant had approved such Resolution Plan of Tata Steels Limited. On being satisfied that the Resolution Plan of Tata Steels Limited satisfied the requirements of the Code of 2016, the Adjudicating Authority had approved such Resolution Plan on May 15, 2018. Consequent upon such approval, Bamnipal Steel Limited a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tata Steels Limited had acquired the control and management of the defendant. The challenge to the Resolution Plan as approved by the Adjudicating Authority before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had failed. On November 27, 2018, the name of the defendant had changed to Tata Steel BSL Limited.
6. Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. (supra) has held that, Section 31 (1) of the Code of 2016 makes it clear that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the Committe
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.