Justice N.V. Ramana

Once Liquidator applies to the NCLT for the decision to sell the movable and immovable assets of the Corporate Debtor in liquidation by adopting a particular mode of sale and NCLT grants approval to such a decision, there is no provision in the IBC that empowers the NCLAT to suo motu conduct a judicial review of the said decision – R.K. Industries (Unit-II) LLP Vs. H.R. Commercials Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court of India

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that only two points arise for consideration in these appeals. Firstly, whether the respondent No.2 – Liquidator was justified in discontinuing the Second Swiss Challenge Process for the sale of a part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor wherein the appellant – R.K. Industries was declared as an Anchor Bidder and opting for a Private Sale Process through direct negotiations in respect of the composite assets of the Corporate Debtor? If so, was the NCLAT justified in directing the respondent No.2 – Liquidator to restart the entire process of Private Sale after issuing an open notice to prospective buyers instead of confining the process to those parties who had participated in the process earlier?

Once Liquidator applies to the NCLT for the decision to sell the movable and immovable assets of the Corporate Debtor in liquidation by adopting a particular mode of sale and NCLT grants approval to such a decision, there is no provision in the IBC that empowers the NCLAT to suo motu conduct a judicial review of the said decision – R.K. Industries (Unit-II) LLP Vs. H.R. Commercials Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court of India Read Post »

IBC would prevail over the Customs Act, 1962 and once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC, the Custom authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies – Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs – Supreme Court of India

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
i) Once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act.

ii) After such assessment, the respondent authority has to submit its claims (concerning customs dues/operational debt) in terms of the procedure laid down, in strict compliance of the time periods prescribed under the IBC, before the adjudicating authority.

iii) In any case, the IRP/RP/liquidator can immediately secure goods from the respondent authority to be dealt with appropriately, in terms of the IBC.

IBC would prevail over the Customs Act, 1962 and once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC, the Custom authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies – Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs – Supreme Court of India Read Post »

Scroll to Top