IBC | No Casual Interference With Commercial Wisdom Of CoC: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Direction To Reevaluate Corporate Debtor’s Assets

IBC | No Casual Interference With Commercial Wisdom Of CoC: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Direction To Reevaluate Corporate Debtor’s Assets

Case: Ramkrishna Forgings Limited v Ravindra Loonkar & Anr.

Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No.1527 OF 2022

Court Observation: “In the case at hand, we find that there was no occasion before the Adjudicating Authority NCLT to be swayed only on the per se ground that the hair-cut would be about 94.25% and that it was not convinced that the fair value of the assets have been projected in proper manner as the bid of the appellant was very close to the fair value of the assets of ACIL. Ordering revaluation of the assets, by the OL, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, in-charge of the particular area, cannot be justified.”

“In the case at hand, we find that there was no occasion before the Adjudicating Authority NCLT to be swayed only on the per se ground that the hair-cut would be about 94.25% and that it was not convinced that the fair value of the assets have been projected in proper manner as the bid of the appellant was very close to the fair value of the assets of ACIL. Ordering revaluation of the assets, by the OL, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, in-charge of the particular area, cannot be justified.”

“Stricto sensu, it is now well-settled that it is well within the CoC’s domain as to how to deal with the entire debt of the Corporate Debtor. In this background, if after repeated negotiations, a Resolution Plan is submitted, as was done by the appellant (Resolution Applicant), including the financial component which includes the actual and minimum upfront payments, and has been approved by the CoC with a majority vote of 88.56%, such commercial wisdom was not required to be called into question or casually interfered with.”

“Surprisingly, the discussion in both orders is wanting, except for the difference in the figure of the total outstanding dues and the amount of money which the appellant was to put up initially for taking over the Corporate Debtor, for this Court to understand as to what other reasons, grounded in the Code’s provisions, compelled the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT to embark upon the novel path of ordering revaluation by the OL. At the cost of repetition, nobody had moved before the NCLT or raised any objection challenging the Resolution Plan pending approval. Even the NCLAT has only indicated that when “figures of crores” are emerging stage-wise, “then there is no harm to look at the Expert opinion”, which the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT in this case has asked for.”

Previous Posts

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Municipal Corporation Order Directing Pacific Mall Not To Charge Parking Fee From Visitors

Explanation For Each Day Of Delay Not Required For Condonation Of Delay In Filing A Case: Bombay High Court

S.76(3) Trademarks Act Does Not Require Both Rival Marks To Be Registered CTMs, Targeted Client Base Relevant To Infringement: Delhi High Court

CPC | Proprietary Concerns Can File Suits Provided Complete Details Of Owner Are Disclosed In Plaint: J&K High Court

Suspension Of Para Swimmer Prasanta Karmakar Accused Of Recording Videos Of Female Swimmers Upheld By Delhi High Court

Keywords

IBC | No Casual Interference With Commercial Wisdom Of CoC, Supreme Court