Back
NCLT Delhi Rejects Cine Corp Filmdom , Orders Stargaze Entertainment
The , has ordered the of , a cinema exhibition company, after rejecting a submitted by The Tribunal found that the entire was irreparably flawed from its inception, primarily because the (RP) failed to take control of the company’s assets. The judgment, delivered by the bench of Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi, underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements under the , and warns against the acceptance of resolution plans that offer mere “peanuts” to creditors.
Background of the Insolvency Process
The CIRP against Stargaze Entertainment was initiated on by over a default exceeding ₹70 crore. Subsequently, the debt was assigned to , which became the sole and the sole member of the . Claims from operational creditors—including and suppliers—were admitted, totalling over ₹103 crore. Yet, the process soon deviated from its statutory path.
RP's Failure to Take Control of Assets
A central finding of the Tribunal was the RP’s inability to secure possession of significant assets belonging to the . Valuation reports placed the fair value at ₹1.24 crore and the value at ₹82.33 lakh, but these figures did not account for a substantial ₹50 crore deposit held by the ’s holding company. The RP filed multiple applications seeking possession of these assets but later withdrew them without explanation.
The bench observed: “We also fail to appreciate that how without taking control of the assets of the CD, the RP could take steps under Regulation 36A of (CIRP) Regulations, 2016. It is also not understood that how the RP could prepare the in terms of the provisions of , when he was unable to take control of entire assets of the CD, as per .” This failure, the Tribunal noted, rendered the entire valuation and information memorandum unreliable.
Inadequacy of the
initially offered a of just ₹50 lakh, with ₹49.5 lakh earmarked for the and nominal amounts for operational creditors. The Tribunal rejected this plan on , highlighting that the successful resolution applicant stood to benefit by nearly ₹3 crore from pending asset recoveries, while creditors were offered a paltry sum. A revised plan marginally increased the offer to ₹50.25 lakh, which the Tribunal still found inadequate and inconsistent with statutory requirements.
The judgment noted that the RP had proceeded with plan approval despite having withdrawn possession applications, and that the CoC’s so-called “” had been exercised in an opaque manner. The bench stressed that cannot be reduced to a mere “something is better than nothing” approach.
The Tribunal’s Observations on
The NCLT delved deeply into the concept of under the IBC. It held that represents the CoC’s practical and informed business judgment concerning the economic viability and feasibility of a , and must be understood in both micro and macro dimensions. The bench observed: “A decision that merely seeks to secure some recovery for the , while leaving only ‘peanuts’ for other creditors, cannot automatically be characterised as an exercise of .”
This remark signals a rigorous judicial scrutiny of resolution plans that disproportionately favour financial creditors at the expense of others. The Tribunal emphasised that the objective of the IBC is not merely maximum recovery for secured creditors but the revival of the as a and equitable treatment of all stakeholders.
Ordered with Custom Distribution
Finding that the foundation of the CIRP was vitiated, the Tribunal rejected the revised and ordered of Stargaze Entertainment. It appointed Gorang Moudgil as the liquidator. However, the Tribunal crafted a unique distribution direction: in the process, recoveries must first match the amounts earmarked in the for the , , and operational creditors. Only thereafter should residual amounts be distributed in accordance with the under .
This order aims to protect the expectations created during the CIRP while ensuring that the does not completely disregard the interests of operational creditors and .
Implications for Insolvency Practice
The judgment serves as a stern reminder to resolution professionals and committees of creditors that procedural compliance and transparency are non-negotiable. The NCLT’s refusal to endorse a plan based on an undermined information memorandum and failed asset control reinforces the principle that the IBC’s processes must be conducted in a “” manner. For legal practitioners, the case highlights the risks of proceeding with plan approval while significant asset-related applications are withdrawn or pending. The bench’s critique of opaque decision-making may also prompt greater judicial oversight of CoC deliberations, especially in cases where the is the sole member.
Moreover, the rejection of a plan that offered marginal recovery while the resolution applicant stood to gain significantly from asset recoveries underscores the need for realistic valuations and proper asset tracing. The decision could influence future negotiations, compelling resolution applicants to offer more equitable terms.
Conclusion
The NCLT Delhi’s order in the Stargaze Entertainment case is a landmark example of the Tribunal’s willingness to invalidate a flawed CIRP and resort to where the process has been irredeemably compromised. By rejecting a that failed to meet statutory requirements and fell short of , the bench has reaffirmed the IBC’s core objectives. The appointment of a liquidator and the tailored distribution mechanism provide a pathway for creditors to recover at least part of their dues, while the broader legal community gains valuable guidance on the limits of and the duty of resolution professionals to take control of assets from the outset.
