Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be pressed in respect to a Resolution Plan under IBC – Fervent Synergies Ltd. Vs. Manish Jaju, RP – NCLAT New Delhi
In this case, Appellant submitted that RP having accepted the claim with regard to 10 flats sold to the Appellant, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the said claim could not have been interfered with or reduced as has been done in the Resolution Plan.
Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) The principle of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed against the Resolution Applicant, who submits Resolution Plan on the basis of relying on the Information Memorandum, the list of creditors and other aspect of the matter.
(ii) The Resolution Applicant has not extended any promise to the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor that the claim submitted by Financial Creditor or any other creditor shall be accepted in toto.
(iii) If a Resolution Plan is compliant with the provision of Section 30, sub-section (2) of the IBC and the provisions of the Regulations, 2016, the Plan cannot be faulted on the ground of the promissory estoppel, which the Appellant is pressing against the Resolution Professional, who has admitted the claim.
(iv) The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed into service in reference to the Resolution Plan, which has been submitted by a Resolution Applicant and approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom.
