1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7940 OF 2019
RAHUL JAIN ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAVE SCANS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The resolution applicant (hereafter “the appellant”) is
aggrieved by the decision of the National Company Law
Appellate Board (hereafter “NCLAT”) in regard to its directions
modifying a resolution plan accepted by the adjudicating
authority (i.e. National Company Law Tribunal, hereafter
“NCLT” or “the adjudicating authority”). The Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against M/s.
Rave Scans Private Limited (hereafter the “Corporate Debtor”)
2
under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
("IBC" or “the Code” for short). The revised resolution plan
submitted by the appellant was approved by the NCLT on 17th
October, 2018. The second respondent, M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd.
(hereafter the “Financial Creditor” or “Hero”) appealed against
the NCLT’s order on grounds of discrimination between
financial creditors, which resulted in the NCLAT modifying the
NCLT’s final order. The question urged by the appellant is
whether the finding that the financial creditor was
discriminated against, leading the NCLAT to modify the
adjudicating authority’s directions, and consequently imposing
greater financial burdens on the resolution applicant, is
justified in the circumstances.
2. The facts of the case are as follows. The CIRP was initiated
on 25th January, 2017 against the Corporate Debtor under
Section 10 of the IBC. The appellant was the resolution
applicant of the Corporate Debtor, whose liquidation value was
ascertained as 36 crores. Against the said amount, the ₹
appellant offered 54 crores to revive the Corporate Debtor in ₹
terms of the resolution plan. The resolution plan was then
revised and the revised resolution plan submitted by the
appellant was approved by the adjudicating authority, i.e., the
Principal Bench of the NCLT. This resolution plan was
challenged before the NCLAT by the second respondent in the
present appeal, Hero Fincorp Ltd. as being discriminatory.
Discrimination was alleged on the ground that the secured
3
financial creditors were provided with a higher percentage of
their claim amounts; however, Hero had been allowed a lesser
percentage of its admitted claim. Hero, who had dissented with
the resolution plan, had been provided with 32.34% of its
admitted claim, whereas other financial creditors had been
provided with 45% of their admitted claims. The remarks
column in the resolution plan showed that the plan was based
on ‘Maintained liquidation value (LV) under Regulation 38 of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency
Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
The reference herein was to the unamended Regulation 38,
pertaining to the mandatory contents of a resolution plan.
3. The NCLAT in its impugned order which set aside the
NCLT’s directions and required the appellant to increase the
liquidation value of the offer to Hero, relied on Central Bank of
India v. Resolution Professional of the Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. &
Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 526 of 2018 and
Binani Industries Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda & Anr., Company
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2018, and noticed that
Regulation 38 had been held to be discriminatory in these
cases. Accordingly, an amendment was made on 5th October,
2018, and the provision in Regulation 38(1)(c) on liquidation
value payable to financial creditors was deleted. The amended
regulation was also considered by the Supreme Court in Swiss
Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online SC
73, which noticed that the amendment strengthens the rights of
4
operational creditors by statutorily incorporating the principle
of fair and equitable dealing of operational creditors’ rights,
together with priority in payment over financial creditors. Swiss
Ribbons (supra) also observed that the NCLAT, while looking
into the viability and feasibility of resolution plans approved by
the committee of creditors, has always gone into the question of
whether operational creditors are given roughly the same
treatment as financial creditors, and if not, such plans have
been rejected or modified so that the rights of operational
creditors are safeguarded.
4. The order approving the resolution plan, which was
impugned before the NCLAT was passed by the adjudicating
authority on 17th October, 2018. The NCLAT held that this
order failed to notice that no resolution plan could be approved
discriminating against the dissenting financial creditor, in
terms of the amended Regulation 38. The NCLAT further held
that the adjudicating authority failed to notice that the NCLAT
had declared the unamended Regulation 38(1)(c), which
stipulated the liquidation value for dissenting financial
creditors as illegal. It was held that the resolution plan in this
instance, which had been approved by the impugned order of
the NCLT, did not conform to the test in Section 30(2)(e) of the
IBC, and was discriminatory against similarly situated ‘Secured
Creditors’.
5
5. The NCLAT further observed that under Section 30(2)(b)
(ii), such differential treatment must only be made in such a
manner as may be specified by the Board, which shall not be
less than the amount to be paid to these creditors in
accordance with Section 53(1) in the event of liquidation of the
corporate debtor. The NCLAT held that the amended Regulation
38 would still be applicable, and the Corporate Debtor could
not take advantage of the repealed provision. In light of this
reasoning, the NCLAT held the resolution plan to be
discriminatory and violative of Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC, and
directed that the successful resolution applicant remove the
discrimination by providing similar treatment to the appellant
before the NCLAT, as other similarly situated financial
creditors.
6. It was observed that the successful resolution applicant
had noticed that Regulation 38 was amended on 5th October,
2018; the applicant, however, failed to bring this fact to the
notice of the adjudicating authority when the matter was taken
up for approval, and also did not amend the resolution plan to
make it in accordance with the amended Regulation 38. The
grounds for discrimination alleged by the Corporate Debtor
were that firstly, Regulation 37(1) requires a resolution plan to
offer ‘maximization of value of its assets’, which is fulfilled by
offering 54 crores against the liquidation value of 36 crores ₹ ₹
only; secondly, Regulation 38(1)(c) mandatorily provided for the
maintenance of the liquidation value of dissenting financial
6
creditors before the amendment dated 5th October 2018;
thirdly, the committee of creditors, in its meeting, directed the
resolution professional to seek a legal opinion on differential
value of financial creditors. The committee of creditors accepted
the opinion obtained by the resolution professional stating that
liquidation value has to be maintained for dissenting creditors.
Accordingly, in the next revised resolution plans dated 12th
January, 2018, 16th February, 2018, and 5th October, 2018, the
resolution applicant offered minimum liquidation value (not a
percentage of the claim).
7. It was urged by Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior
counsel, that PSU banks had a higher stake in the total claim
value and liquidated value of assets, having security of fixed
assets, plant and machinery, debtors, inventory and personal
guarantee, etc. On the other hand, NBFCs only had security
against specific plant & machinery and the personal guarantee
of the promoters. It was also argued that the resolution plan
has been fully implemented and financial creditors (except
Hero) have released security to the Corporate Debtor. Further,
the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporate Debtor
argued that under Section 30(2)(b)(ii), the resolution plan allows
separate treatment of financial creditors who do not vote in
favour of the resolution plan.
8. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel for the second
respondentHero, urged that this court should not interfere
7
with the impugned order. He relied on the observations in
Swiss Ribbons and Section 30 of the IBC, to say that creditors
falling within one description or class cannot be discriminated
against. It was pointed out that the PSU banks’ dues were given
primacy, inasmuch as all of them were given a settlement of
45% of their admitted claims; however, the dissenting Financial
Creditor (Hero) was provided with 32.34% of its admitted claim
which is plainly discriminatory and contrary to the letter and
spirit of the IBC.
9. Mr. Sibal relied on the observations of this court in Swiss
Ribbons (supra) that:
“72. The aforesaid Regulation further strengthens the
rights of operational creditors by statutorily
incorporating the principle of fair and equitable
dealing of operational creditors' rights, together with
priority in payment over financial creditors."
10. Section 30, which is relied upon by the respondents, and
which was interpreted by the NCLAT, reads as follows:
“30. (1) A resolution applicant may submit a
resolution plan to the resolution professional
prepared on the basis of the information
memorandum.
(2) The resolution professional shall examine each
resolution plan received by him to confirm that each
resolution plan—
(a) provides for the payment of insolvency resolution
process costs in a manner specified by the Board in
priority to the repayment of other debts of the
corporate debtor;
8
(b) provides for the repayment of the debts of
operational creditors in such manner as may be
specified by the Board which shall not be less than
the amount to be paid to the operational creditors in
the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor
under section 53; (c) provides for the management of
the affairs of the Corporate debtor after approval of
the resolution plan; (d) the implementation and
supervision of the resolution plan;
(e) does not contravene any of the provisions of the
law for the time being in force;
(f) conforms to such other requirements as may be
specified by the Board.
(3) The resolution professional shall present to the
committee of creditors for its approval such resolution
plans which confirm the conditions referred to in subsection (2).
(4) The committee of creditors may approve a
resolution plan by a vote of not less than seventyfive
per cent. of voting share of the financial creditors.
(5) The resolution applicant may attend the meeting
of the committee of creditors in which the resolution
plan of the applicant is considered:
Provided that the resolution applicant shall not have
a right to vote at the meeting of the committee of
creditors unless such resolution applicant is also a
financial creditor.
(6) The resolution professional shall submit the
resolution plan as approved by the committee of
creditors to the Adjudicating Authority.”
11. Section 30 lays out the duties of the resolution
professional and the various steps that she or he has to take,
as well as the considerations that are to weigh, in examining a
9
resolution plan. The principle of fairness engrafted in the
provision is that the plan should make a provision for
repayment of debts of operational creditors having regard to the
value, which shall not be less than what is prescribed by the
Board (i.e. the Insolvency Board), repayable in the event of
liquidation, spelt out in Section 53. Section 30(3) requires the
resolution professional to present the resolution plan to the
committee of creditors and Section 30(4) stipulates that
approval shall be by a vote not less than 75% of the voting
share of the financial creditors. Regulation 38, as it stood before
the amendment and its substitution, read as follows:
"38. Mandatory contents of the resolution plan.—
(1) A resolution plan shall identify specific sources
of funds that will be used to pay the
(a) insolvency resolution process costs and provide
that the [insolvency resolution process costs, to the
extent unpaid, will be paid] in priority to any other
creditor;
(b) liquidation value due to operational creditors
and provide for such payment in priority to any
financial creditor which shall in any event be made
before the expiry of thirty days after the approval of
a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority; and
(c) liquidation value due to dissenting financial
creditors and provide that such payment is made
before any recoveries are made by the financial
creditors who voted in favour of the resolution
plan."
12. After its amendment, Regulation 38 now reads as follows:
10
"38. Mandatory contents of the resolution plan.—
(1) The amount due to the operational creditors
under a resolution plan shall be given priority in
payment over financial creditors.
(1A) A resolution plan shall include a statement as
to how it has dealt with the interests of all
stakeholders, including financial creditors and
operational creditors, of the corporate debtor.”
13. In the present case, it is noticeable that no doubt, Hero
was provided with 32.34% of its admitted claim as it has
dissented with the plan. On the other hand, Tata Capital
Financial Services Ltd. was provided with 75.63% of its
admitted claim; other financial creditors (Indian Overseas
Bank, Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank) were
provided with 45% of their admitted claims. Given that the
resolution process began well before the amended regulation
came into force (in fact, January, 2017) and the resolution plan
was prepared and approved before that event, the wide
observations of the NCLAT, requiring the appellant to match the
payout (offered to other financial creditors) to Hero, was not
justified. The court notices that the liquidation value of the
corporate debtor was ascertained at 36 crores. Against the ₹
said amount, the appellant offered 54 crores. The plan was ₹
approved and, except the objections of the dissenting creditor
(i.e Hero), the plan has attained finality. Having regard to these
factors and circumstances, it is held that the NCLAT’s order
and directions were not justified. They are hereby set aside; the
order of the NCLT is hereby restored.
11
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds
and is allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order on
costs.
........................................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
........................................J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
New Delhi,
November 8, 2019.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7940 OF 2019
RAHUL JAIN ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAVE SCANS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The resolution applicant (hereafter “the appellant”) is
aggrieved by the decision of the National Company Law
Appellate Board (hereafter “NCLAT”) in regard to its directions
modifying a resolution plan accepted by the adjudicating
authority (i.e. National Company Law Tribunal, hereafter
“NCLT” or “the adjudicating authority”). The Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against M/s.
Rave Scans Private Limited (hereafter the “Corporate Debtor”)
2
under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
("IBC" or “the Code” for short). The revised resolution plan
submitted by the appellant was approved by the NCLT on 17th
October, 2018. The second respondent, M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd.
(hereafter the “Financial Creditor” or “Hero”) appealed against
the NCLT’s order on grounds of discrimination between
financial creditors, which resulted in the NCLAT modifying the
NCLT’s final order. The question urged by the appellant is
whether the finding that the financial creditor was
discriminated against, leading the NCLAT to modify the
adjudicating authority’s directions, and consequently imposing
greater financial burdens on the resolution applicant, is
justified in the circumstances.
2. The facts of the case are as follows. The CIRP was initiated
on 25th January, 2017 against the Corporate Debtor under
Section 10 of the IBC. The appellant was the resolution
applicant of the Corporate Debtor, whose liquidation value was
ascertained as 36 crores. Against the said amount, the ₹
appellant offered 54 crores to revive the Corporate Debtor in ₹
terms of the resolution plan. The resolution plan was then
revised and the revised resolution plan submitted by the
appellant was approved by the adjudicating authority, i.e., the
Principal Bench of the NCLT. This resolution plan was
challenged before the NCLAT by the second respondent in the
present appeal, Hero Fincorp Ltd. as being discriminatory.
Discrimination was alleged on the ground that the secured
3
financial creditors were provided with a higher percentage of
their claim amounts; however, Hero had been allowed a lesser
percentage of its admitted claim. Hero, who had dissented with
the resolution plan, had been provided with 32.34% of its
admitted claim, whereas other financial creditors had been
provided with 45% of their admitted claims. The remarks
column in the resolution plan showed that the plan was based
on ‘Maintained liquidation value (LV) under Regulation 38 of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency
Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
The reference herein was to the unamended Regulation 38,
pertaining to the mandatory contents of a resolution plan.
3. The NCLAT in its impugned order which set aside the
NCLT’s directions and required the appellant to increase the
liquidation value of the offer to Hero, relied on Central Bank of
India v. Resolution Professional of the Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. &
Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 526 of 2018 and
Binani Industries Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda & Anr., Company
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2018, and noticed that
Regulation 38 had been held to be discriminatory in these
cases. Accordingly, an amendment was made on 5th October,
2018, and the provision in Regulation 38(1)(c) on liquidation
value payable to financial creditors was deleted. The amended
regulation was also considered by the Supreme Court in Swiss
Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online SC
73, which noticed that the amendment strengthens the rights of
4
operational creditors by statutorily incorporating the principle
of fair and equitable dealing of operational creditors’ rights,
together with priority in payment over financial creditors. Swiss
Ribbons (supra) also observed that the NCLAT, while looking
into the viability and feasibility of resolution plans approved by
the committee of creditors, has always gone into the question of
whether operational creditors are given roughly the same
treatment as financial creditors, and if not, such plans have
been rejected or modified so that the rights of operational
creditors are safeguarded.
4. The order approving the resolution plan, which was
impugned before the NCLAT was passed by the adjudicating
authority on 17th October, 2018. The NCLAT held that this
order failed to notice that no resolution plan could be approved
discriminating against the dissenting financial creditor, in
terms of the amended Regulation 38. The NCLAT further held
that the adjudicating authority failed to notice that the NCLAT
had declared the unamended Regulation 38(1)(c), which
stipulated the liquidation value for dissenting financial
creditors as illegal. It was held that the resolution plan in this
instance, which had been approved by the impugned order of
the NCLT, did not conform to the test in Section 30(2)(e) of the
IBC, and was discriminatory against similarly situated ‘Secured
Creditors’.
5
5. The NCLAT further observed that under Section 30(2)(b)
(ii), such differential treatment must only be made in such a
manner as may be specified by the Board, which shall not be
less than the amount to be paid to these creditors in
accordance with Section 53(1) in the event of liquidation of the
corporate debtor. The NCLAT held that the amended Regulation
38 would still be applicable, and the Corporate Debtor could
not take advantage of the repealed provision. In light of this
reasoning, the NCLAT held the resolution plan to be
discriminatory and violative of Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC, and
directed that the successful resolution applicant remove the
discrimination by providing similar treatment to the appellant
before the NCLAT, as other similarly situated financial
creditors.
6. It was observed that the successful resolution applicant
had noticed that Regulation 38 was amended on 5th October,
2018; the applicant, however, failed to bring this fact to the
notice of the adjudicating authority when the matter was taken
up for approval, and also did not amend the resolution plan to
make it in accordance with the amended Regulation 38. The
grounds for discrimination alleged by the Corporate Debtor
were that firstly, Regulation 37(1) requires a resolution plan to
offer ‘maximization of value of its assets’, which is fulfilled by
offering 54 crores against the liquidation value of 36 crores ₹ ₹
only; secondly, Regulation 38(1)(c) mandatorily provided for the
maintenance of the liquidation value of dissenting financial
6
creditors before the amendment dated 5th October 2018;
thirdly, the committee of creditors, in its meeting, directed the
resolution professional to seek a legal opinion on differential
value of financial creditors. The committee of creditors accepted
the opinion obtained by the resolution professional stating that
liquidation value has to be maintained for dissenting creditors.
Accordingly, in the next revised resolution plans dated 12th
January, 2018, 16th February, 2018, and 5th October, 2018, the
resolution applicant offered minimum liquidation value (not a
percentage of the claim).
7. It was urged by Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior
counsel, that PSU banks had a higher stake in the total claim
value and liquidated value of assets, having security of fixed
assets, plant and machinery, debtors, inventory and personal
guarantee, etc. On the other hand, NBFCs only had security
against specific plant & machinery and the personal guarantee
of the promoters. It was also argued that the resolution plan
has been fully implemented and financial creditors (except
Hero) have released security to the Corporate Debtor. Further,
the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporate Debtor
argued that under Section 30(2)(b)(ii), the resolution plan allows
separate treatment of financial creditors who do not vote in
favour of the resolution plan.
8. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel for the second
respondentHero, urged that this court should not interfere
7
with the impugned order. He relied on the observations in
Swiss Ribbons and Section 30 of the IBC, to say that creditors
falling within one description or class cannot be discriminated
against. It was pointed out that the PSU banks’ dues were given
primacy, inasmuch as all of them were given a settlement of
45% of their admitted claims; however, the dissenting Financial
Creditor (Hero) was provided with 32.34% of its admitted claim
which is plainly discriminatory and contrary to the letter and
spirit of the IBC.
9. Mr. Sibal relied on the observations of this court in Swiss
Ribbons (supra) that:
“72. The aforesaid Regulation further strengthens the
rights of operational creditors by statutorily
incorporating the principle of fair and equitable
dealing of operational creditors' rights, together with
priority in payment over financial creditors."
10. Section 30, which is relied upon by the respondents, and
which was interpreted by the NCLAT, reads as follows:
“30. (1) A resolution applicant may submit a
resolution plan to the resolution professional
prepared on the basis of the information
memorandum.
(2) The resolution professional shall examine each
resolution plan received by him to confirm that each
resolution plan—
(a) provides for the payment of insolvency resolution
process costs in a manner specified by the Board in
priority to the repayment of other debts of the
corporate debtor;
8
(b) provides for the repayment of the debts of
operational creditors in such manner as may be
specified by the Board which shall not be less than
the amount to be paid to the operational creditors in
the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor
under section 53; (c) provides for the management of
the affairs of the Corporate debtor after approval of
the resolution plan; (d) the implementation and
supervision of the resolution plan;
(e) does not contravene any of the provisions of the
law for the time being in force;
(f) conforms to such other requirements as may be
specified by the Board.
(3) The resolution professional shall present to the
committee of creditors for its approval such resolution
plans which confirm the conditions referred to in subsection (2).
(4) The committee of creditors may approve a
resolution plan by a vote of not less than seventyfive
per cent. of voting share of the financial creditors.
(5) The resolution applicant may attend the meeting
of the committee of creditors in which the resolution
plan of the applicant is considered:
Provided that the resolution applicant shall not have
a right to vote at the meeting of the committee of
creditors unless such resolution applicant is also a
financial creditor.
(6) The resolution professional shall submit the
resolution plan as approved by the committee of
creditors to the Adjudicating Authority.”
11. Section 30 lays out the duties of the resolution
professional and the various steps that she or he has to take,
as well as the considerations that are to weigh, in examining a
9
resolution plan. The principle of fairness engrafted in the
provision is that the plan should make a provision for
repayment of debts of operational creditors having regard to the
value, which shall not be less than what is prescribed by the
Board (i.e. the Insolvency Board), repayable in the event of
liquidation, spelt out in Section 53. Section 30(3) requires the
resolution professional to present the resolution plan to the
committee of creditors and Section 30(4) stipulates that
approval shall be by a vote not less than 75% of the voting
share of the financial creditors. Regulation 38, as it stood before
the amendment and its substitution, read as follows:
"38. Mandatory contents of the resolution plan.—
(1) A resolution plan shall identify specific sources
of funds that will be used to pay the
(a) insolvency resolution process costs and provide
that the [insolvency resolution process costs, to the
extent unpaid, will be paid] in priority to any other
creditor;
(b) liquidation value due to operational creditors
and provide for such payment in priority to any
financial creditor which shall in any event be made
before the expiry of thirty days after the approval of
a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority; and
(c) liquidation value due to dissenting financial
creditors and provide that such payment is made
before any recoveries are made by the financial
creditors who voted in favour of the resolution
plan."
12. After its amendment, Regulation 38 now reads as follows:
10
"38. Mandatory contents of the resolution plan.—
(1) The amount due to the operational creditors
under a resolution plan shall be given priority in
payment over financial creditors.
(1A) A resolution plan shall include a statement as
to how it has dealt with the interests of all
stakeholders, including financial creditors and
operational creditors, of the corporate debtor.”
13. In the present case, it is noticeable that no doubt, Hero
was provided with 32.34% of its admitted claim as it has
dissented with the plan. On the other hand, Tata Capital
Financial Services Ltd. was provided with 75.63% of its
admitted claim; other financial creditors (Indian Overseas
Bank, Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank) were
provided with 45% of their admitted claims. Given that the
resolution process began well before the amended regulation
came into force (in fact, January, 2017) and the resolution plan
was prepared and approved before that event, the wide
observations of the NCLAT, requiring the appellant to match the
payout (offered to other financial creditors) to Hero, was not
justified. The court notices that the liquidation value of the
corporate debtor was ascertained at 36 crores. Against the ₹
said amount, the appellant offered 54 crores. The plan was ₹
approved and, except the objections of the dissenting creditor
(i.e Hero), the plan has attained finality. Having regard to these
factors and circumstances, it is held that the NCLAT’s order
and directions were not justified. They are hereby set aside; the
order of the NCLT is hereby restored.
11
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds
and is allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order on
costs.
........................................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
........................................J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
New Delhi,
November 8, 2019.
