The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyani Transco v. JSW Steel Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2192-2193 of 2020 upheld the validity and implementation of the Resolution Plan for Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. (BPSL) and dismissed the appeals filed by the erstwhile promoters and operational creditors. The Court reiterated that once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), all prior claims stand extinguished, and no new claims can be raised thereafter. It affirmed that the “commercial wisdom” of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is nonjusticiable and cannot be interfered with by NCLT, NCLAT, or the Supreme Court except on limited statutory grounds. The Hon’ble Court further held that since the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) was silent on the treatment of EBITDA earned during the CIRP, such profits rightfully remained with the corporate debtor. Payments made towards pre-CIRP dues without CoC approval were invalid. Noting that JSW Steel successfully revived a loss-making entity into a profit-making concern, the Court emphasized that reopening settled issues would undermine finality under the IBC. Accordingly, all appeals were dismissed, and the Resolution Plan was upheld in toto.
The Hon’ble NCLAT in the captioned matter set aside the NCLT’s finding that Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) was not a secured creditor and held that KMC’s property tax dues constitute a secured debt under Section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The Tribunal observed that Section 232 creates a statutory first charge over the property for unpaid municipal taxes, making KMC a secured creditor within the meaning of Section 3(30) of the IBC. Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, the NCLAT clarified that statutory bodies like municipal corporations are distinct from the government and their dues cannot be treated as “crown debts.” Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and KMC’s claim was directed to be treated as that of a secured creditor in liquidation.
The Hon’ble NCLAT in the captioned matter upheld the NCLT’s order dated 20.08.2025, remitting the resolution plan of M/s. International Recreation and Amusement Ltd. (Appu Ghar Project) to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed the CoC to first determine the eligibility of the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), Hari Global Advisory Services–Apex JV, which had undergone major structural and ownership changes after plan approval, including the exit of its joint venture partner, Parklane Investments. NCLAT emphasized that reconstitution of an SRA post-approval is impermissible and must be examined by the CoC.
The Hon’ble NCLAT in the captioned matter set aside the NCLT’s order, which had classified the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) dues as operational debts within the liquidation estate. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that contributions deducted towards ESI, both the employer’s and employee’s share, are held in trust under Section 40(4) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and therefore do not form part of the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Relying on its earlier decision in Nurani Subramanian Suryanarayanan, Liquidator of Care IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. ESIC (2024), the Tribunal clarified that such ESI funds are trust assets, distinct from operational debts, and must be excluded from distribution under Section 53 of the IBC. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the NCLT order was quashed.
In the captioned matter, the Hon’ble NCLAT allowed the appeal filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and set aside the Ld. NCLT order dismissing its plea for re-voting on the Resolution Plan. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that the NCLT had erred in allowing the reconstituted Committee of Creditors (CoC) to reconsider the entire resolution plan, whereas the earlier remand order dated 08.07.2024 required the CoC to examine only specific issues such as equitable treatment of creditors, performance security, feasibility, funding source, and implementation provisions. Referring to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd., the Hon’ble NCLAT observed that once a plan has been approved by the CoC, it cannot be reopened completely and can only be reconsidered on the limited aspects as directed by the Adjudicating Authority. The matter was remanded back to Ld. NCLT for reconsideration.
The Hon’ble NCLAT in the captioned matter upheld the order of the Ld. NCLT admitting Section 7 application filed by Canara Bank of India against Superfine Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., the corporate guarantor of Superfine Metals Pvt. Ltd. The Hon’ble Tribunal rejected the Appellant’s plea that the guarantee deeds of 2015 and 2016 were unenforceable for being insufficiently stamped and stood extinguished by a later guarantee executed in 2020. The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the earlier guarantees remained valid as securities continued under subsequent loan arrangements, and any stamp duty deficiency was a curable defect. The Hon’ble Tribunal, while dismissing the Appeal, concluded that debt and default were undisputed and that technical objections could not defeat insolvency proceedings.
The Hon’ble NCLAT in the captioned matter held that an arbitral award passed in favour of a financial creditor in respect of a loan advanced to the corporate debtor qualifies as a financial debt and the creditor falls within the definition of a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
