I B C Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

July 27, 2024 9:18 am

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rule 3(6)(b) — Suit for Recovery — Impact of Moratorium under IBC — The appellants argued that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) should halt the proceedings — However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the moratorium only applies to cases where the company is undergoing insolvency proceedings — In this case, the suit was not against a company undergoing insolvency, and therefore, the moratorium did not apply.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER — Appellant Vs. HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 340 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GLOBAL CREDIT CAPITAL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SACH MARKETING PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 31(1) and 60 – National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 11 – Inherent Powers – Recall of Resolution Plan approval order passed under Sec. 31(1) of IBC – Recall application was maintainable notwithstanding that an appeal lay before the NCLAT against the order of approval passed by the Adjudicating Authority – A Court or a Tribunal, in absence of any provision to the contrary, has inherent power to recall an order to secure the ends of justice and/or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court

Feb 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. PRABHJIT SINGH SONI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.…

I B C

Set-off is not permitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) -NCLAT reasoned that the debts between Airtel and Aircel arose from separate transactions and were not connected in a way that would justify set-off – The NCLAT ultimately rejected Airtel’s claim for set-off, finding that it was not permitted under the IBC in the context of Aircel’s corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. This decision reflects the importance of protecting the fairness and efficiency of the insolvency resolution process under the IBC.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. VIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

I B C

The NCLAT upheld the CoC’s decision to distribute the proceeds on a pro-rata basis and dismissed the appellant’s appeal – Overall, the NCLAT’s decision balanced the interests of the dissenting financial creditor (DBS Bank) with the need for a fair and equitable distribution of proceeds under the resolution plan.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DBS BANK LIMITED SINGAPORE — Appellant Vs. RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

I B C

IBC | When Matter Heard But No Order Pronounced On The Same Day, Limitation To Commence From The Date When Order Gets Uploaded

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

The Bench observed that the limitation runs from the date of pronouncement of order. The issue was as to when an order is deemed to be pronounced. Rule 89(1) of…

I B C

IBC, 2016 – Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction only under Section 31(2) of the Code, which gives power not to approve only when the Resolution Plan does not meet the requirement laid down under Section 31(1) of the Code, for which a reasoned order is required to be passed – NCLT’s jurisdiction and powers as the Adjudicating Authority under the Code, flow only from the Code and the Regulations thereunder.

Nov 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF ACIL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin…

Contempt I B C

HELD The affidavit further states that following the practice of the NCLAT, the deponent did not entertain any attempt at mentioning by the counsel and that the order of this Court dated 13 October 2023 was not on the record before the Bench presided by the deponent on 13 October 2023. What the affidavit does not state is that a conscious effort was made by the Bench to prevent the order of this Court being placed on the record despite the fact that the court was apprised of the passing of the order by this Court in the morning session. We censure the conduct of the Member

Nov 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and…

I B C SARFAESI

SARFAESI Act | As per Unamended S.13(8), Borrower Has Right To Redeem Available Till Sale Certificate Is Registered & Possession Is Handed Over

Oct 22, 2023 sclaw

“(ii) the confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invest the successful auction purchaser with a vested right to obtain a certificate of sale…

You missed

Tenders & Contracts

E-auction — Typographical error — e-auction for a manganese and iron ore block submitted a bid of 140.10% instead of its intended bid of 104.10% due to a typographical error — The court allowed the company’s appeal and ordered a fresh e-auction for the block — The company was also ordered to pay Rs 3 crore ($400,000) to the state as compensation for the delay caused by its error.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

Corporate

Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 — Paragraph 13 — Recovery of overcharged amount of drugs — Demand made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to recover an overcharged amount for a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation called Roscilox — The Court found that the appellant’s admission of purchasing the drug directly from the manufacturer made it liable under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) — The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that it was only a ‘dealer’ and not a ‘distributor’ under the DPCO, as the definitions of these terms under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive — The Court further noted that the objective of the DPCO is to control the prices of medicinal drug formulations and ensure they are made available to the common man, and thus, the provision should not be subjected to a restricted or hidebound interpretation — Appeal Dismissed.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

Service

Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 — Rules 5 and 11 — The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a judgment by the Patna High Court, which allowed a candidate to be considered for appointment as a City Manager in Bihar — The candidate had scored to meet up the minimum qualifying marks of 32% — The court found that the minimum qualifying marks were only for the written test and not for the overall selection process — The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on an executive order issued in 2007, stating that it was not applicable to the rules issued in 2014 — The court concluded that the candidate was eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment as she had met the minimum qualifying marks in the written test.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

Category: I B C

You missed