No scope for modification of a Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority itself, CoC or SRA | Adjustment of PBG with tranche of Resolution Plan is impermissible under CIRP Regulation 36B(4A) | Timely implementation of Resolution Plan is also one of the underlying objectives of the IBC, 2016 – State Bank of India and ors. Vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr. – Supreme Court
This landmark judgment covers:
(i) The scope of an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC must be restricted to a “question of law”.
(ii) Interpretation of CIRP Regulation 36B(4A).
(iii) Whether the PBG could have been adjusted against the first tranche payment under the Resolution Plan.
(iv) Scope for modification of the terms of a Resolution Plan which has received the imprimatur of the Adjudicating Authority, be it by the Adjudicating Authority itself, the CoC or the SRA.
(v) Whether the non-implementation of the Resolution Plan by the SRA necessarily leads to the consequence of liquidation as under Section 33(3) of the IBC, 2016?
(vi) Whether the timely implementation of the Resolution Plan is also one of the objectives of the IBC, 2016?
(vii) Extension of time exercising power under Rule 15 of NCLT and NCLAT Rules, 2016.
(viii) Exercise of powers, even under Article 142, must be broadly compliant with the insolvency framework and its underlying objective.
(ix) Decision in Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran and Ors.
(x) Shortcomings and Suggestions to the IBC, 2016.