IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, M. S. Raman, JJ.
M/s. ESL Steel Limited & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 18800 of 2022
Decided On : 14-12-2022
Resolution Plan - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Section 7, Section 30, Section 3(10), Section 5(20), Section 5(21) - The court discussed the approval and binding nature of a resolution plan, the definition of 'creditor' and 'operational creditor' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the retrospective operation of the 2019 Amendment. The court held that the 2019 Amendment is declaratory and clarificatory in nature and therefore retrospective in operation, and that even without the amendment, the Central Government, any State Government, or any local authority to whom a debt is owed would be covered by the term 'creditor' and 'other stakeholders' as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the I&B Code.
Fact of the Case:
The resolution plan of the Petitioners was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal. The Customs Department raised a demand pertaining to a period prior to the approval of the resolution plan.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashes the demand challenged in the present writ petition, citing previous decisions and the binding nature of a resolution plan.
Issues: Impugned demand raised by the Customs Department, applicability of the resolution plan to liabilities prior to its approval.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, specifically the definitions of 'creditor' and 'operational creditor', and the retrospective operation of the 2019 Amendment.
Final Decision: The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, and an urgent certified copy of the order is issued as per rules.
JUDGMENT
1. Admittedly, the resolution plan in respect of the present Petitioners was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal on 17th April 2018.
2. As far as the impugned demand raised in the present writ petition by the Customs Department, it pertains to the period prior thereto.
3. With the resolution plan already having been approved, all liabilities of the Petitioners prior to the aforementioned date of the resolution plan would stand extinguished in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited 2021 SCC OnLine SC 313 where it has been held as under:
'93. As discussed hereinabove, one of the principal objects of I&B Code is providing for revival of the corporate debtor and to make it a going concern. The I&B Code is a complete Code in itself. Upon admission of petition under Section 7 there are various important duties and functions entrusted to RP and CoC. RP is required to issue a publication inviting claims from all the stakeholders. He is required to collate the said information and submit necessary details in the information memorandum. The resolution applicants submit their plans on the basis of the details provided in the information memorandum. The resolution plans undergo deep scrutiny by RP as well as CoC. In the negotiations that may be held between CoC and the resolution applicant, various modifications may be made so as to ensure that while paying part of the dues of financial creditors as well as operational creditors and other stakeholders, the corporate debtor is revived and is made an ongoing concern. After CoC approves the plan, the Adjudicating Authority is required to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the plan conforms to the requirements as are provided in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the I&B Code. Only thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority can grant its approval to the plan. It is at this stage that the plan becomes binding on the corporate debtor, its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan. The legislative intent behind this is to freeze all the claims so that the resolution applicant starts on a clean slate and is not flung with any surprise claims. If that is permitted, the very calculations on the basis of which the resolution applicant submits its plans would go haywire and the plan would be unworkable.
94. We have no hesitation to say that the words 'other stakeholders' would squarely cover the Central Government, any State Government or any local authorities. The legislature noticing that on account of obvious omission certain tax authorities were not abiding by the mandate of the I&B Code and continuing with the proceedings, has brought out the 2019 Amendment so as to cure the said mischief. We therefore hold that the 2019 Amendment is declaratory and clarificatory in nature and therefore retrospective in operation.
95. There is another reason which persuades us to take the said view. Clause (10) of Section 3 of the I & B Code defines 'creditor' thus:
'3. (10) 'creditor' means any person to whom a debt is owed and includes a financial creditor, an operational creditor, a secured creditor, an unsecured creditor and a decree-holder;'
96. Clauses (20) and (21) of Section 5 of the I&B Code define 'operational creditor' and 'operational debt' respectively as such:
'5. (20) 'operational creditor' means a person to whom an operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred;
(21) 'operational debt' means a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority;'
97. 'Creditor' therefore has been defined to mean 'any person to whom a debt is owed and includes a financial creditor, an opera
The binding nature of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the interpretation of the definitions of 'creditor' and 'operational creditor' are central legal principles estab....
The approved Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code binds all creditors, extinguishing claims not included, ensuring no surprise liabilities arise post-approval.
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, ensuring a fresh start for the corporate debtor.
Once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, the claims provided in the plan are binding and any claims not included in the plan are extinguished.
The approval of a resolution plan under the IBC extinguishes all claims not included in the plan, including tax liabilities.
(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....
Requirement of “not less than seventy five percent of voting share of the financial creditors” is mandatory.NCLT and NCLAT not empowered to enquire into wisdom of dissenting creditors in voting again....
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.