ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Electrosteel Steel Limited (now M/s ESL Steel Limited) – Appellant
Versus
Ispat Carriers Private Limited through its Director Durga Yadav, son of Late Jadhari Yadav – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under article 227 of the constitution. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on failure to consider decree of nullity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. issues around the enforceability and jurisdiction of the arbitral award. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. discussion on principles for raising objections at execution stage. (Para 15 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. court analysis on limitations of objections at the execution stage. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. court's position on jurisdiction loss and award nature. (Para 31 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 43 , 44) |
| 7. court conclusions on the resolution plan treatment of operational creditors. (Para 49 , 54 , 58) |
| 8. final judgment upholding the previous decision. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
JUDGMENT :
Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: -
Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.R. Selvam Alagappan
Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta
Gaffar Khan Vs. Magma Shrachi Finance Limited, Kolkata
Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.
Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors.
Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey & Anr.
Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank & Another
Kohinoor Transporters v. State of U.P.
M. Anasuya Devi and Another Vs. M. Manik Reddy and Others
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
Sneh Lata Goel Vs. Pushplata and Others
Sushil Kumar Mehta V. Gobind Ram Bohra (dead) through his LRS.
The approved resolution plan under the IBC extinguishes claims not included, rendering any arbitral award related to such claims non-executable.
Once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished, and the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on such claims.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the extinguishment of pre-existing and undecided claims upon approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy ....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the binding effect of the resolution plan approved by the NCLT on stakeholders, as well as the extinguishment of claims not part of the approve....
The approval of a resolution plan under the IBC extinguishes all claims not included in the plan, including tax liabilities.
The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain execution applications against dissolved entities; disputes of fraud must be resolved by NCLT as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
(1) Insolvency Resolution Plan – Once resolution plan is approved by Adjudicating Authority, after it is satisfied, that resolution plan as approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC) meets requirements....
The approval of a resolution plan under the IBC extinguishes all claims not included in the plan, including tax liabilities, ensuring a fresh start for the corporate debtor.
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.