JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. & ANR. versus IDBI BANK LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 06-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. & ANR.
v.
IDBI BANK LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8437 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 06, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: s. 7 – Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process – Power of the NCLT or NCLAT to
exclude any period for purpose of counting 270 days Corporate
Resolution Process period – Power to invite fresh resolution plans
after expiry of statutory period for completion of CIRP – On facts,
Bank filing application u/s. 7 of the Code against appellant company
before NCLT as the company had turned NPA (Non-Performing
Asset) – During pendency, writ petition by home buyers concerning
the stated project – Meanwhile issuance of public notice by Interim
Resolution Professional inviting claims from all the stake holders
of the appellant company including home buyers – Thereafter,
application by home buyers before NCLT seeking clarification as
to manner in which voting percentage of allottes to be reckoned –
Bank filing another application before NCLT for excluding the
period of pendency of the application for clarification regarding
the manner of counting votes of the financial creditors from the
period of 270 days of CIRP – Issuance of direction by NCLT to
proceed further with CIRP despite pending clarificatory motions
including the aforesaid application – NCLAT allowed exclusion of
90 days for the purpose of counting the period of 270 days of
CIRP – On appeal, held: In view of the recent legislative changes,
the scope of resolution plan stands expanded which may now include
provision for restructuring the corporate debtor including by way
of merger, amalgamation and demerger and more so the power
bestowed on the Committee of Creditors-CoC to consider not only
the feasibility and viability of the resolution plan but also the manner
of distribution proposed, which may take into account the order of
priority amongst the creditors – In the instant case, finally only two
bidders had participated and submitted their resolution plan which
was placed before the CoC and stated to have been rejected –
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 312
312
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
However, applying the principle underlying Regulation 36B(7), it
is deemed appropriate to permit the IRP to reissue request for
resolution plans to the two bidders (Suraksha Realty and NBCC)
and/or to call upon them to submit revised resolution plan(s), which
can be then placed before the CoC for its due consideration – In
view of the legislative changes, this Court needs to and must exercise
the plenary powers to make an attempt to revive the corporate debtor,
lest it is exposed to liquidation process under the Code – There is
inclination to do so because the project has been implemented in
part and out of over 20,000 home buyers, a substantial number of
them have been put in possession and the remaining work is in
progress and in some cases at an advanced stage of completion –
Thus, to do substantial and complete justice to the parties and in
the interest of all stakeholders of the appellant company, IRP
directed to complete CIRP within 90 days from the date of this order
– In the first 45 days, IRP would invite revised resolution plan only
from the final bidders, and in second phase of 45 days, margin is
provided for removing any difficulty and to pass appropriate orders
– Constitution of India – Art 142.
Chitra Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2018)
9 SCALE 490 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 9 SCALE 490      relied on
       Para 11, 13, 14, 15, 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8437
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order  dated 30.07.2019 of the  National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT)
(Insolvency) No. 536 of 2019.
 With
Civil Appeal No. 6486 of 2019.
Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Arvind Verma,
Siddarth Dave, Fali S. Nariman, Anupam Lal Das, Jaideep Gupta,
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Advs., Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, S. Muthu Krishnan,
M. L. Lahoty, Anchit Sripat, Himanshu Shekhar, Ashwarya Sinha,
Ms. Mohini Priya, Ivan, Alok K. Singh, Rahul Kumar, Ilesh Shukla,
JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. & ANR. v.
IDBI BANK LTD. & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
Chetanya Singh, Jay Kishor, Ms. Zeba Khair, Ms. Madhusmita Bora,
Pawan Kishore Singh, Vishal Gupta, Subesh Sharma, Sumeet Sharma,
Divyanshu Gupta, Ajay Jain, Jinendra Jain, Brijesh Yadav, Abhishek Jain,
Ms. Tannu, Bishw

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