The Supreme Court on February 12, 2024 in ‘Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni’ reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 122 sent back a resolution plan to the committee of creditors (“COC”) for resubmission because parameters set out under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) were not met.
Brief Facts:
The appellant is a statutory authority which acquired land for setting up an urban and industrial township. One of the plots which were acquired by the appellant was allotted by way of lease for 90 years to a company named M/s JNC Constructions (“Corporate Debtor”). The Corporate Debtor defaulted in payment of instalments and was served with a demand notice. This was followed by a company petition being filed against the Corporate Debtor for corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”), which was admitted on May 30, 2019. Consequent thereto, the appellant submitted its claim to the RP, as a financial creditor (“FC”) of the Corporate Debtor, for unpaid lease instalments.
The RP treated the appellant’s claim as a claim from an operational creditor and requested the appellant to file a Form B, which was not done by the appellant.
NCLT:
In the meantime, the COC and then the NCLT, approved the resolution plan. Aggrieved with the decision of the RP of treating the appellant as an operational creditor, the appellant filed an application in NCLT inter alia questioning the resolution plan and the decision of the RP to treat the appellant as an operational creditor. The NCLT rejected the application filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not taken any steps for a period of seven months since the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, despite the fact that the appellant was aware of the CIRP.
NCLAT:
Aggrieved by the order of the NCLT, the appellant filed an appeal before the NCLAT on the grounds that (i) the appellant was a FC and ought to have been a part of the COC, which was not done, thus the resolution plan was invalid (ii) the appellant had a charge over the assets of the corporate debtor and was a secured creditor within Section 3(30) and 3(31) of the IBC and (iii) the RP had violated the principles of Section 30(2) of IBC.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal inter alia observing that (i) appellant chose not to file a claim despite being informed by RP (ii) the Supreme Court in ‘New Okhla Development v. Anand Sonbhadra’ reported in (2023) 1 SCC 724 has observed that disbursement is an indispensable requirement to constitute a financial debt (iii) the resolution plan was approved by NCLT, the successful resolution applicant had informed the appellant about the plan, yet, the appellant had not been diligent in pursuing its right and lastly (iv) there was no irregularity in the approval of the resolution plan and the commercial wisdom of the COC was justifiable.
Analysis of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
The provisions of IBC and CIRP regulations 2016 (“Regulations”) make it clear that the RP is under a statutory obligation to collate data/information, which forms part of an information memorandum. Based on this, the resolution applicant(s) submit(s) plan. Once the plan is submitted by a resolution applicant, the RP examines it to confirm whether it meets the requirements of Section 30(2).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgement in ‘Jaypee Kensington v NBCC’ reported in (2022) 1 SCC 401 which examined the scope of judicial review exercisable by the NCLT over a resolution plan approved by the COC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, though commercial wisdom of the COC in approving resolution plan may not be justiciable in exercise of the power of judicial review, the NCLT can always take notice of any shortcomings in the resolution plan. If any shortcoming appears [as specified in Section 30(2) of the IBC], the resolution plan may be sent back to the COC for resubmission. Similarly, the NCLAT can also interfere upon noticing shortcoming in the resolution plan while exercising its powers under Section 32 and Section 61(3) of the IBC.
In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the resolution plan did not meet the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC read with Regulation 37 and 38 for the following reasons:
The Supreme Court was of the view that the resolution plan did not meet the parameters laid down in IBC and the Regulations. The Supreme Court sent back the resolution plan to the COC for re-submission after satisfying that the parameters set out under the IBC are met.
Please find attached a copy of the judgment.
This update has been contributed by Ranjit Shetty (Senior Partner) and Priyanka Shetty (Principal Associate).
Argus Knowledge Centre is now on WhatsApp! Send us a message on +91 8433523504 to receive updates from our Knowledge Centre.
Download Pdf
7A, 7th Floor, Tower C, Max House,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3,
New Delhi – 110020
The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:
a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;
c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;
d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and
e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.