Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.2(b) – Insolvency proceedings were initiated against an erstwhile company – The petitioner-company was declared as the Successful Resolution Applicant – Resolution Plan was submitted – The NCLT approved the Resolution Plan – Pursuant thereto, the management of the erstwhile company was taken over by the petitioner company – Thereafter, various demand notices were raised upon the petitioner company for recovery of Sales Tax, Central Tax and Entry Tax – Petitionercompany contended that the act of the respondents in initiating proceedings for the dues which are not part of the Resolution Plan are on the face of it contemptuous in nature and in violation of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra – Correctness:
Held: In view of clear pronouncement of law by this Court, all the dues of any of the stakeholders including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, which were not part of the Resolution Plan, stood extinguished from the date on which the Resolution Plan stood approved – A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with “undecided” claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor – All claims must be submitted to and decided by the RP so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor – In the instant case, there is no hesitation in holding that the demands raised by the respondents/authorities for a period prior to the date on which the NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan were totally contemptuous in nature – The respondents could not have raised the said demands inasmuch as they are not part of the Resolution Plan – In spite of public notice, neither the State of Chhattisgarh nor its authorities raised any claim before the CoC – In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the present Petitioner is specifically covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra, which judgment was brought to the notice of the respondents/authorities, the respondents/authorities could not have proceeded with the recovery proceedings. [Paras 22, 24, 27, 33]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.