RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED versus RAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSION OF ACIL LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 672 · Decided: 21-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 672 : 2023 INSC 1013
672
CASE DETAILS
RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED
v.
RAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSION OF ACIL 
LIMITED & ANR.1
R1 : Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution  Profession(al) of ACIL 
Limited
R2 : Committee of Creditors of ACIL Ltd.
(Civil Appeal No.1527 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 21, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The moot question involved is the extent 
of the jurisdiction and powers of the Adjudicating Authority to go on the 
issue of revaluation in the background of the admitted and undisputed 
factual position that no objection was raised by any quarter with regard 
to any defi ciency/irregularity, either by the RP or the appellant or the 
CoC, in fi nally approving the Resolution Plan which was sent to the 
Adjudicating Authority-NCLT for approval.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Adjudicating 
Authority-NCLT by order dated 01.09.2021, the application seeking 
approval of a Resolution Plan for ACIL or corporate debtor was kept 
in abeyance while directing the offi  cial liquidator (OL) to carry out a 
re-valuation of the assets of the corporate debtor and provide exact 
fi gures/value of the assets and exact value details – NCLAT upheld 
the order of the NCLT – Propriety:
Held: If the CoC, including the FC(s) to whom money is due 
from the Corporate Debtor, had undertaken repeated negotiations with 
1 
Cause-title should correctly include ‘Resolution Professional’ instead of ‘Resolution 
Profession’
673
the appellant with regard to the Resolution Plan and thereafter, with a 
majority of 88.56% votes, approved the fi nal negotiated Resolution Plan 
of the appellant, which the RP, in turn, presented to the Adjudicating 
Authority-NCLT for approval, unless the same was failing the tests of 
the provisions of the Code, especially Sections 30 & 31, no interference 
was warranted – It is worthwhile to note that the Adjudicating Authority 
has jurisdiction only u/s. 31(2) of the Code, which gives power not to 
approve only when the Resolution Plan does not meet the requirement 
laid down u/s. 31(1) of the Code, for which a reasoned order is required 
to be passed – The NCLT’s jurisdiction and powers as the Adjudicating 
Authority under the Code, fl ow only from the Code and the Regulations 
thereunder – The order dated 01.09.2021 by the NCLT cannot withstand 
judicial scrutiny, either on facts or in law – Also, the said order is cryptic 
and bereft of details – Accordingly, the order dated 01.09.2021 of the 
NCLT and impugned judgment of the NCLAT are set aside. [Paras 
27,32,34]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v 
NBCC (India) Limited (2022) 1 SCC 401; Pratap Technocrats Private 
Limited v Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited (2021) 10 
SCC 623 – relied on.
Maharashtra Seamless Limited v Padmanabhan Venkatesh [2020] 
2 SCR 1157:(2020) 11 SCC 467; M K Rajagopalan v Dr Periasamy 
Palani Gounder, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 574; M K Rajagopalan v Dr 
Periasamy Palani Gounder 2023 SCC OnLine SC 574; K Sashidhar v 
Indian Overseas Bank [2019] 3 SCR 845:(2019) 12 SCC 150; Committee 
of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v Satish Kumar Gupta [2019] 16 
SCR 275 : (2020) 8 SCC 531; Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. v Committee of 
Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited 2021 SCC OnLine SC 707; 
Vallal RCK v Siva Industries and Holdings Limited 2022 SCC OnLine 
SC 717; Arun Kumar Jagatramka v Jindal Steel and Power Limited 
[2021] 3 SCR 114:(2021) 7 SCC 474; Kalpraj Dharamshi v Kotak 
Investment Advisors Limited [2021] 2 SCR 677: (2021) 10 SCC 401; 
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India : [1978] 2 SCR 621:(1978) 1 SCC 
RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD v. RAVINDRA LOONKAR, 
R. P. OF ACIL LTD.
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
248; Innoventive Industries Ltd. v ICICI Bank [2017] 8 SCR 33: (2018) 
1 SCC 407; Swiss Ribbons Private Limited v Union of India [2019] 3 
SCR 535:(2019) 4 SCC 17; Kranti Associates Private Limited v Masood 
Ahmed Khan [2010] 10 SCR 1070 : (2010) 9 SCC 496; Manoj Kumar 
Khokhar v State of Rajasthan (2022) 3 SCC 501; Embassy Property 
Developments Private Limited v State of Karnataka[2019] 17 SCR 559: 
(2020) 13 SCC 308; Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v Amit Gupta 
(2021) 7 SCC 209 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1527 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2022 of the National 
C

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