judgement
Subject : Corporate Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has rejected the resolution plan submitted by
Rare
Asset Reconstruction Limited (
Rare
ARC) in consortium with Check-Inn Hotels Pvt. Ltd. for the revival of
The key arguments presented in the case were:
The NCLT observed that the inclusion of Check-Inn Hotels Pvt. Ltd. as a consortium partner at the last minute was in violation of the CIRP Regulations, which prescribe a detailed procedure for the preparation of the final list of prospective resolution applicants. The NCLT held that the CoC could not have exercised its discretion to permit the change in the composition of the consortium after the submission of the resolution plan.
The NCLT also found that the failure to provide the resolution plan to the erstwhile directors before the CoC meeting held on February 22, 2023 was a material irregularity in the CIRP process, as the members of the erstwhile board of directors are vitally interested in the resolution plan.
However, the NCLT held that the eligibility of Rare ARC as a resolution applicant under the SARFAESI Act would not be a ground for rejecting the resolution plan, as the provisions of the IBC would prevail over the SARFAESI Act.
The NCLT rejected the resolution plan submitted by Rare ARC and Check-Inn Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and granted liberty to the RP and CoC to re-run the CIRP process strictly in accordance with the IBC and the CIRP Regulations. The NCLT also deemed an extension of the CIRP period by 4 months for this purpose.
The NCLT's decision highlights the importance of strict adherence to the procedural requirements under the IBC and the CIRP Regulations, even in the exercise of the commercial wisdom of the CoC. The judgment serves as a reminder that the NCLT will not hesitate to intervene if there are material irregularities in the CIRP process that undermine the principles of transparency and fairness.
#CorporateInsolvency #ResolutionPlan #NCLT #NationalCompanyLawTribunalTribunalCourt
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
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.