Kalyani Transco vs. Bhushan Power And Steel Ltd. 2025 INSC 621 - IBC - Resolution Plan - PMLA [Judgment Recalled]
CaseCiter
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) - Section 30 - If the Resolution Plan does not comply with mandatory requirements and such plan is approved by the CoC, it could not be said that the CoC had exercised its commercial wisdom while approving such Resolution Plan. (Para 73) Merely because the Code is silent with regard to the phase of implementation of the Resolution Plan by the Successful Resolution Applicant, neither the Tribunal nor the Courts should give excessive leeway to the Successful Resolution Applicant to act in flagrant violation of the terms of the Resolution Plan or in a lackadaisical manner. (Para 82)
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA) -Companies Act 408,410 - IBC - Section 31,60- The PMLA being a Public Law, the NCLAT did not have any power or jurisdiction to review the decision of the Statutory Authority under the PMLA. (Para 30) Neither the NCLT nor the NCLAT is vested with the powers of judicial review over the decision taken by the Government or Statutory Authority in relation to a matter which is in the realm of Public Law - wherever the Corporate Debtor has to exercise a right that falls outside the purview of the IBC, especially in the realm of the public law, they cannot take a bypass and go before NCLT for the enforcement of such a right- NCLAT also, being an Appellate Authority under Section 61 over the orders passed by the NCLT, could not exercise any power or jurisdiction beyond Section 61 of IBC. (Para 27)
IBC - Section 62 - The use of the phrase “any person aggrieved” indicates that there is no rigid locus requirement to institute an Appeal challenging the order of NCLT before the NCLAT, or an order of NCLAT before this Court. Any person who is aggrieved by the order may institute an Appeal. Once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is initiated, the proceedings are no longer restricted to any individual Applicant Creditor or to the Corporate Debtor, but rather they become collective proceedings in rem, where all the creditors and the Ex- Directors would be necessary stakeholders. Therefore, the Appellants who are the operational creditors, and the erstwhile Promoters, being important stakeholders, and whose Company Appeals have been dismissed by the NCLAT vide the impugned judgment, would certainly be the persons aggrieved entitled to file Appeals before this Court under Section 62 of the IBC.
IBC - Section 29A- eligibility/ineligibility of the Resolution Applicant to submit the Resolution Plan goes to the root of the matter, it was incumbent on the part of the Resolution Professional to verify and certify that the contents of the mandatory affidavit, filed by the Resolution Applicant-JSW in respect of Section 29A were in order. (Para 23)
IBC - Section 12 - The provision contained in Section 12(1) is mandatory in nature as the expression “shall be completed” is used. (Para 46)
IBC - Section 31,61- For filing an Appeal under Section 61, there has to be an order passed by the NCLT so far as sub-section (1) is concerned, and if the Appeal is filed against the order of NCLT approving the Resolution Plan under Section 31, it could be filed only on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 61. (Para 29)
