12/11/2021

The existing Insolvency Framework in India provides no scope for effecting further modification or withdrawal of CoC approved Resolution Plans, at the behest of the Successful Resolution Applicant, once Plan has been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority – CoC of Educomp Solutions Limited through State Bank of India Vs. Mr. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal, RP of Educomp Solutions Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ebix Singapore (2021) ibclaw.in 153 SC has observed that the existing Insolvency Framework in India provides no scope for effecting further modification or withdrawal of Committee of Creditors approved Resolution Plans, at the behest of the Successful Resolution Applicant, once Plan has been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its conclusion noted that ‘a Resolution Applicant, after obtaining the financial information of the Corporate Debtor through the informational utilities and perusing the IM, is assumed to have analysed the risks in the business of the Corporate Debtor and submitted a considered proposal. A submitted Resolution Plan is binding and irrevocable as between the CoC and the Successful Resolution Applicant in terms of the provisions of the IBC and the CIRP Regulations’. Keeping in view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Resolution Applicant, in Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that CA No. 195/PB/2018 is to be restored.

The existing Insolvency Framework in India provides no scope for effecting further modification or withdrawal of CoC approved Resolution Plans, at the behest of the Successful Resolution Applicant, once Plan has been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority – CoC of Educomp Solutions Limited through State Bank of India Vs. Mr. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal, RP of Educomp Solutions Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 posits that a fresh period of Limitation shall be computed from the date when the party against whom the right is claimed acknowledges its liability – Unigold System, a proprietorship concern through its Proprietor, Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Fortune Spirit Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 posits that a fresh period of Limitation shall be computed from the date when the party against whom the right is claimed acknowledges its liability – Unigold System, a proprietorship concern through its Proprietor, Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Fortune Spirit Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top