Whether Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016[For short, “IBC” or “the Code”, as the case may be.], as amended in 2019, entitles the dissenting financial creditor to be paid the minimum value of its security interest? (Para 1)
The first issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the amendments made in the substantive portion of Section 30(2), in terms of Explanation 2 will be applicable when the first appeal was heard by the NCLAT. The Amendment Act was notified and came into effect on 16.08.2019. The appellant had preferred the first appeal before the NCLAT on 31.07.2019, which appeal was directed against the provisional approval order passed by the NCLT on 24.07.2019. In our opinion, Explanation 2(ii) clearly states that an appeal preferred under Section 61 or 62, when it is not barred by time under any provision of law, shall be heard and decided after considering the amended Section 30(2)(b) under the Amendment Act. In fact, Explanation 2(i) states that the amended clause shall “also” apply to the CIRP of the corporate debtor where a resolution plan has not been approved or rejected by the adjudicating authority. Explanation 2(iii) states that the amended Section 30(2)(b) shall “also” apply where legal proceedings have been initiated in any court against the decision of the adjudicating authority. Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Explanation 2 reflect the wide expanse and width of the legislative intent viz. the application of the Amendment Act, whether proceedings are pending before the adjudicating authority, the appellate authority, or before any court in a proceeding against an order of the adjudicating authority in respect of a resolution plan. Only when the resolution plan, as approved, has attained finality as no proceedings are pending, that the amendments will not apply to re-write the settled matter. (Para 22)
In view of the aforesaid discussion, and as we are taking a different view and ratio from India Resurgence ARC Private Limited (supra) on interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC, we feel that it would be appropriate and proper if the question framed at the beginning of this judgment is referred to a larger Bench. The matter be, accordingly placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. (Para 49)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 15 SC
[2024 INSC 14]
Dbs Bank Limited Singapore Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited And Another
Civil Appeal No. 9133 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 787 OF 2020-Decided on 03-01-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-STPLWeb-15-SC.pdf
