ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, INDU MALHOTRA
ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SATISH KUMAR GUPTA – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, it is clear that the role of the Resolution Professional (or Resolution Officer) is primarily to conduct due diligence, verify compliance with legal requirements, and facilitate the submission and evaluation of resolution plans by the Committee of Creditors. The Resolution Professional's responsibilities include examining the completeness of resolution plans, ensuring conformity with statutory provisions, and reporting to the Committee of Creditors regarding the legality and viability of the plans (!) (!) (!) .
However, the Resolution Professional does not possess the authority to make binding decisions regarding the approval or rejection of resolution plans or to undertake functions that are inherently judicial or executive in nature, such as furnishing bail bonds or similar security obligations. The authority to grant bail bonds or to act as a surety or guarantor in legal proceedings is a judicial or executive function that requires specific legal empowerment, which is not conferred upon the Resolution Professional under the insolvency framework (!) (!) .
Therefore, the Resolution Officer or Professional, in their capacity under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, does not have the entitlement or authority to furnish bail bonds or undertake similar security obligations. Their role is confined to procedural and administrative functions aimed at facilitating the resolution process, and they are not authorized to perform functions that involve legal guarantees or suretyship, which are outside the scope of their statutory mandate.
JUDGMENT
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. The facts of the present case revolve around the ineligibility of resolution applicants to submit resolution plans after the introduction of Section 29A into the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), with effect from 23.11.2017.
2. On 2.8.2017, the Adjudicating Authority, being the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench, passed an order under Section 7 of the Code at the behest of financial creditors, being the State Bank of India and the Standard Chartered Bank, admitting a petition filed under the Code for financial debts owed to them by the corporate debtor Essar Steel India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ESIL”), in the sum of roughly Rs.45,000,00,00,000 (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Crores). Shri Satish Kumar Gupta was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and confirmed as such on 4.9.2017. Consequently, the Resolution Professional published an advertisement dated 6.10.2017, seeking expression of interest from potent
Ms. Eera Through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd.
Union of India v. ABN Amro Bank
Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd.
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd.
Technip SA v. SMS Holding (Pvt.) Ltd.
E.V. Mathai v. Subordinate Judge, Kottayam
M/s. Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. v. Jayaram Chigurupati
Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Kishore R. Ajmera
Madras Petrochem Ltd. v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction
Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank
Surendra Trading Co. v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd.
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.