Case Law Details
UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs Aircel Ltd. Through Its Monitoring Committee (NCLAT Delhi)
The recent judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the case of UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr. vs Aircel Ltd. highlights a crucial aspect of resolution proceedings. It addresses the issue of substitution of a Resolution Applicant (RA) after the approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The appellants, UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr., sought substitution of another entity in place of the approved Resolution Applicant, citing concerns over eligibility and a circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The NCLAT, however, upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to reject the plea for substitution. The tribunal emphasized that once a resolution plan is approved, the substitution of the RA is not permissible, thereby affirming the sanctity of the resolution process.
The judgment underscores the importance of finality and certainty in insolvency proceedings. Allowing substitution post-approval could disrupt the resolution process, leading to uncertainties and delays. Moreover, it reaffirms the authority of the CoC and the NCLT in determining the suitability of a resolution plan and the RA.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
