Case Law Details
DBS Bank Limited Singapore Vs Ruchi Soya Industries Limited And Another (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court held that question that whether Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended in 2019, entitles the dissenting financial creditor to be paid the minimum value of its security interest should be referred to a larger Bench.
Facts- The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeals is whether Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended in 2019, entitles the dissenting financial creditor to be paid the minimum value of its security interest?
Conclusion- We would, for the above reasons, reject the submission on behalf of the respondents that Section 30(2)(b)(ii) is unworkable because it involves deeming fiction relating to liquidation, which is inapplicable during the CIRP period. This would be contrary to the legislative intent and is unacceptable.
Held that as we are taking a different view and ratio from India Resurgence ARC Private Limited on interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC, we feel that it would be appropriate and proper if the question framed at the beginning of this judgment is referred to a larger Bench. The matter be, accordingly placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
