Back
Supreme Court Halts NCLAT's Revival of IL&FS Plea Against SREI Group's ₹1,080 Crore Loans
The on Monday granted a stay on the operation of a order that had revived a plea by to unwind six alleged worth ₹1,080 crore involving entities of the . The interim relief comes as a significant development in a long-running dispute that pits the finality of a corporate insolvency resolution plan against the power of company law tribunals to investigate and collapse apparent .
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the stay after hearing extensive arguments from both sides. The case centres on six lending transactions undertaken between and , which IL&FS claims were deliberately structured to circumvent restrictions on fresh lending to group companies. According to IL&FS, its subsidiary IFIN lent funds to SREI group entities, which in turn routed corresponding amounts back to IL&FS group companies, creating a that masked the true nature of the dealings.
Background of the Lending Transactions
The dispute is rooted in the broader financial troubles of IL&FS, which defaulted on its obligations in , leading to a government-mandated restructuring of its board and subsequent investigations by multiple agencies. As part of the cleanup, IL&FS sought to recover assets and unwind transactions that it believed were fraudulent or prejudicial to its creditors. The six transactions in question were initially treated by the new management as independent, valid lending arrangements. However, after forensic audits and an investigation by the , IL&FS took the position that these transactions formed a to circumvent RBI norms and should be collapsed.
When IL&FS filed an application before the under —provisions dealing with —the tribunal dismissed the plea at the threshold. The NCLT reasoned that IL&FS had consciously treated the transactions as standalone for several years, including during the of SIFL, and could not now change its stance. The NCLT also noted that SIFL's information memorandum had included receivables from IL&FS group entities as assets, and the resolution plan approved by the —and later upheld by the Supreme Court—had vested those rights in the .
Aggrieved by the NCLT's order, IL&FS appealed to the NCLAT, which reversed the decision and revived the plea. The NCLAT held that the NCLT should examine the merits of the alleged fraudulent transactions rather than reject the application on preliminary grounds. This prompted SREI and its stakeholders to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Apex Court
, appearing for the SREI group, mounted a robust challenge to the NCLAT order. He relied heavily on the NCLT's earlier findings that IL&FS had elected to treat the transactions as independent and enforceable for several years after the restructuring of its board in . Divan argued that IL&FS could not, after the fact, contend that the transactions constituted one composite fraudulent arrangement liable to be unwound. He emphasised the principle of finality in corporate insolvency, submitting that SIFL's resolution plan had been approved by the NCLT and the Supreme Court, and that allowing IL&FS to reopen the transactions would undermine that finality.
“There has to be some finality and these are ₹1,000 crores which are receivable,” Divan told the court, pointing out that the receivables from IL&FS were part of the assets that NARCL had acquired under the resolution plan. He further argued that IL&FS had not challenged the inclusion of those receivables in the information memorandum during the CIRP, nor did it seek any relief concerning the transactions at that stage. The resolution plan, he contended, had vested the relevant rights and receivables in NARCL, and IL&FS could not now seek to extinguish or re-characterise those assets through proceedings under the Companies Act.
On the other side, , representing IL&FS, framed the central issue as a question of jurisdiction: whether the NCLT, while exercising its powers under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, can examine whether transactions are fraudulent and consequently liable to be unwound. “The question before your Lordships is only this. Does the NCLT have the power while dealing with cases to exercise its power to determine that there has been a fraudulent transaction?” Sankaranarayanan submitted.
He argued that the transactions were structured to circumvent RBI restrictions on intra-group lending, relying on regulatory and investigative material including the RBI inspection report, the SFIO report, and forensic audit material. In his submission, the question of whether the transactions were fraudulent could not be shut out merely because IL&FS had earlier treated them as standalone. He also disputed the weight given to the chronology of the SIFL resolution process, noting that IL&FS’s application to collapse the transactions was filed on , while the approval of the resolution plan occurred later in . Therefore, he argued, the NCLT should examine the transactions on their merits rather than reject the application at the threshold.
Legal Implications and Analysis
The Supreme Court’s interim stay on the NCLAT order highlights a critical tension in Indian corporate law. On one hand, the Companies Act empowers the NCLT to grant relief in cases of , including the power to declare transactions as fraudulent and unwind them. On the other hand, the prioritises the , which are intended to provide a clean break for distressed companies and their stakeholders.
If the NCLT were to collapse the six transactions, it could potentially affect the assets that NARCL acquired under the SIFL resolution plan, thereby unsettling the resolution process and the rights of creditors who voted in favour of the plan. The Supreme Court will have to balance these competing interests: the need to investigate and remedy alleged fraud, and the need to preserve the integrity and finality of approved resolution plans.
Another key legal issue is the scope of the NCLT’s jurisdiction under Sections 241 and 242. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could clarify whether the tribunal can revisit transactions that were not challenged during the CIRP but later come under suspicion based on investigative findings. This will have significant implications for future insolvency cases where similar allegations of pre-resolution fraud arise.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of timing and consistency in litigation strategy. IL&FS’s decision to treat the transactions as independent for several years, only to later allege they were part of a fraudulent scheme, raises questions about . The Supreme Court’s final judgment will likely provide guidance on the circumstances under which a company can change its position on the characterisation of transactions.
Moreover, the dispute underscores the interplay between the Companies Act and the IBC. Lawyers advising companies in insolvency will need to be vigilant about identifying potential fraudulent transactions early, as delay may risk losing the ability to challenge them after the resolution plan is approved. The case also highlights the role of reconstruction companies like NARCL in acquiring and enforcing receivables, and the need for robust due diligence before finalising resolution plans.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s stay on the NCLAT order is an interim measure, and the larger question of whether the NCLT can examine the alleged fraudulent transactions will be decided in due course. The matter raises fundamental issues about corporate governance, the sanctity of insolvency resolution, and the powers of company law tribunals. For now, the SREI group and its stakeholders have secured temporary relief, but the legal battle is far from over. The legal community will watch closely as the Supreme Court navigates the complex intersection of the Companies Act and the IBC, setting precedents that could shape corporate litigation and insolvency practice for years to come.
