GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus PRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 12-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 258 : 2024 INSC 102
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority 
v. 
Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7590-7591 of 2023)
12 February 2024
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J. B. Pardiwala and 
Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in exercise of powers under s.60(5), Insolvency and 
Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT can recall 
an order of approval passed under s.31(1) of the IBC; whether the 
application for recall of the order was barred by time; whether the 
resolution plan put forth by the resolution applicant did not meet 
the requirements of s.30(2) of the IBC read with Regulations 37 
and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and; what relief, if any, the 
appellant is entitled to.
Headnotes
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.30(2), 31(1), 60(5) 
– The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency 
Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 
2016 – National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – r.11 – 
Inherent power of the Tribunal – Recall of the order of approval 
passed u/s.31(1) – Maintainability of application for recall – 
Resolution plan put forth by the resolution applicant, if met 
the requirements of s.30(2) r/w Regulations 37 and 38 of the 
CIRP Regulations, 2016: 
Held: 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 – 
Neither the IBC nor the Regulations framed thereunder, in any 
way, prohibit, exercise of such inherent power – Rather, s.60(5)
(c) which opens with a non-obstante clause, empowers the NCLT 
(the Adjudicating Authority) to entertain or dispose of any question 
of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in 
relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of 
the corporate debtor or corporate person under the IBC – Further, 
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
259
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. 
Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.
r.11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 preserves the inherent power of the 
Tribunal – In the present case, the grounds taken in the recall 
application qualified as valid grounds on which a recall of the 
order of approval could be sought– Thus, the recall application 
was maintainable notwithstanding that an appeal lay before the 
NCLAT against the order of approval passed by the Adjudicating 
Authority – Neither NCLT nor NCLAT while deciding the application/
appeal of the appellant took note of the fact that the appellant was 
not served notice of the meeting of the Committee of Creditors 
(COC); the entire proceedings up to the stage of approval of the 
resolution plan were ex-parte to the appellant; the appellant had 
submitted its claim, and was a secured creditor by operation of 
law, yet the resolution plan projected the appellant as one who 
did not submit its claim; and the resolution plan did not meet all 
the parameters laid down in s.30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 
38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 – Also, the Recall Application 
was not barred by time – Impugned order set aside – Resolution 
plan be sent back to the COC for re-submission after satisfying 
the parameters set out by the Code. [Para 50, 52 and 55]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and 
Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process 
for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 – Claim submitted 
with proof could not be overlooked merely because it is in 
a different Form:
Held: Even if a claim submitted by a creditor against the Corporate 
Debtor (CD) is in a Form not as specified in the CIRP Regulations, 
2016, the same has to be given due consideration by the IRP or the 
RP, as the case may be, if it is otherwise verifiable, either from the 
proof submitted by the creditor or from the records maintained by 
the CD – A fortiori, if a claim is submitted by an operational creditor 
claiming itself as a financial creditor, the claim would have to be 
accorded due consideration in the category to which it belongs 
provided it is verifiable – The resolution plan disclosed that the 
appellant did not submit its claim, when the unrebutted case of the 
appellant was that it had submitted its claim with proof – Though, 
the record indicates that the appellant was advised to submit its 
claim in Form B (meant for operational creditor) in place of Form 
C (meant of financial creditor) – But, assuming the ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.