Kalyani Transco Vs Bhushan Power And Steel Limited And Others (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court held that the Successful Resolution Applicant [SRA] cannot be forced to deal with claims that are not a part of the Request for Resolution Plan [RfRP] issued in terms of Section 25 of the IBC or a part of its Resolution Plan.
Facts- This batch of six appeals are filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by erstwhile promoters and various Operational Creditors of the Corporate Debtor against the common final impugned judgment and order dated 17th February 2020 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in relation to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited.
On 17th February 2020, vide the Impugned Judgment and Order, the NCLAT approved the Resolution Plan of the SRA – JSW by modifying/clarifying some of the conditions imposed by the NCLT. The NCLAT inter alia also clarified that BPSL and its assets were entitled to protection from criminal prosecution under Section 32A of IBC.
Conclusion- This Court, in the case of Supreme Court Essar has clearly held that such could not have been the intention of the legislature as this would amount to hydra heads popping up after the approval of the Resolution Plan. It has been categorically held that the SRA cannot be forced to deal with claims that are not a part of the RfRP issued in terms of Section 25 of the IBC or a part of its Resolution Plan. No doubt that if RfRP had specifically dealt with the manner in which the EBITDA would be distributed, it would have been a different matter. Admittedly, in the present case, neither the RfRP nor the Resolution Plan dealt with it. Permitting the erstwhile promoters or the CoC to raise an argument in that regard at such a belated stage would amount to doing violence to the very intention with which the IBC was enacted.
