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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 13324

TRIPURA HIGH COURT
, J
SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited Kolkata v. State of Tripura
Writ Petition No. 123 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Jishnu Saha
For the Respondents: Mr. SS Dey

The court ruled that blacklisting under the IBC is unjustifiable if it penalizes a new management for previous violations, undermining the statute’s intention of providing a fresh start.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 31 - Blacklisting for three years - Impugned order quashed for violating principles of natural justice and undermining the purpose of revival under the IBC, leading to collateral damages for the new management - Extension of previous liabilities extinguished by resolution plan - No substantial misdeeds by the current management established. (Para 69)

(B) Blacklisting - Nature of action post insolvency - Court emphasized that blacklisting should not penalize the new management for acts of the erstwhile company management, as it undermines the objective of providing a clean slate; principles of proportionality and natural justice were not adhered to. (Para 56)

(C) Right to fair process - Requirement for a clear statement of allegations and proposed actions when blacklisting, included evidence of substantive breach or misconduct. (Paras 8, 14, 17.1)

Facts of the case:
Writ petition challenging blacklisting order dated 5th October 2023, previously terminated due to corporate restructuring under IBC, with performance guarantee already forfeited. Many extensions were granted for project completion under various government acts, with blacklisting deemed excessively punitive considering the new management's innocence.

Findings of Court:
Blacklisting order quashed because the primary aim of the IBC and its provisions were violated, emphasizing the rehabilitation of the corporate debtor and the impracticality of allowing past conduct to affect the future of a newly reborn corporate management.

Issues: Was the blacklisting order appropriate following the approval of the resolution plan that removed all prior liabilities?

Ratio Decidendi: Blacklisting incompatible with the objectives of IBC; it perpetuates penalties for past actions not attributable to new management while lacking adequate justification for imposing such a penalty.

Result: Writ petition allowed, and blacklisting order quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the writ petition and initial order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details on project execution timelines and events. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. notices leading to blacklisting actions. (Para 9 , 10)
4. court observations on legal procedures followed. (Para 11 , 12)
5. arbitral tribunal proceedings regarding performance guarantee. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. petitioner's arguments on company revival under ibc. (Para 16 , 17)
7. doctrine of proportionality in light of blacklisting. (Para 19 , 21 , 22)
8. respondent's arguments on justification for blacklisting. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
9. court's key issues for determination. (Para 36 , 37)
10. conclusion quashing the blacklisting order. (Para 68 , 69)

1. This writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 5th October, 2023 issued by the respondents whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years and debarred from participating in the tender process for any work advertised by the Government of Tripura (Annexure - 1 to the writ petition).

2. The order of blacklisting has been passed after approval of the resolution plan under S.31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on 11th August, 2023 by the learned NCLT, Kolkata whereby the petitioner's management has been transferred to a new management. Earlier the petitioner was blacklisted vide order dated 6th March, 2023 and debarred from participating in any tender process for any work of the Government of Tripura. This was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No.271 of 2023 wherein this court vide order dated 29th May, 2023 quashed the blacklisting order dated 6th March, 2023. Thereafter, the impugned order of blacklisting has been passed.

3. The genesis of the dispute is the allotment of work for providing consultancy services for the Geographic Information System (GIS) based Master Plan Formulation for 20 cities in the State of Tripura under Tripura Town and Country Planning Act, 1975 as per the Request for Proposal issued on 23rd August, 2017 by the respondent.

4. As per the averments of the petitioner, the work was awarded after opening of price bids vide letter of acceptance dated 29th November, 2018 for a sum of Rs.4, 77, 90, 000/- (Rupees Four Crore Seventy Seven Lakh and Ninety Thousand only). The petitioner furnished a Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs. 95, 58, 000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs and Fifty Eight thousand only) on 14th December, 2018. Parties entered into an agreement on 7th January, 2019 wherein the petitioner was engaged to provide consultancy services for the above work. The petitioner was asked to complete the work within 345 days from the date of signing of the contract vide letter dated 8th January, 2019. He submitted an inception report on 25th January, 2019. In the first meeting of the Consultancy Evaluation and Review Committee of the AMRUT sub-scheme for formulation of Master Plan held on 26th March, 2019 it was decided that the petitioner would finalize the planning areas of 20 towns. The first installment of consultancy fee was also recommended for release. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the base map of the master plan for the city of Agartala and 19 towns in Tripura on 15th November, 2019. A sum of Rs. 95, 58, 000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs and Fifty Eight thousand only) was sanctioned towards 20% of the consultancy fee on approval of the base map on 25th November, 2019. On 13th December, 2019 a cheque of Rs.84, 11, 040/- (Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Eleven Thousand and Forty only) was issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondents granted extension of time for completion of the project on 21st December, 2019.

5. The respondents further issued a memorandum for sanction of Rs.9, 58, 443/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Eight thousand Four hundred and Forty Three only) towards payment of income tax. The petitioner submitted the Differential Global Positioning System Survey Report for remaining three towns in Tripura on 5th February, 2020. On 7th February, 2020 the
















































































































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