Supreme Court Judgements On Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code In 2023

Sabka Vishwas Scheme: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Company Which Missed Deadline Due To IBC Moratorium

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices M R Shah and Justice B V Nagarathna has remarked that “No one can be expected to do the impossible” while granting relief to a company which could not avail the benefit of settlement of tax dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, due to moratorium under IBC being imposed on it. "The appellant cannot be punished for not doing something which was impossible for it to do. There was a legal impediment in the way of the appellant to make any payment during the moratorium. Even if the appellant wanted to deposit settlement amount within the stipulated period, it could not do so in view of the bar under the IBC as, during the moratorium, no payment could have been made. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot be rendered remediless and should not be made to suffer due to a legal impediment which was the reason for it and/or not doing the act within the prescribed time." Allowing the appeal, the court directed that the payment of Rs.1,24,28,500/- already deposited by the appellant be appropriated towards settlement dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019” and the appellant be issued discharge certificate. Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15

IBC - Delay In Filing CIRP Application Condonable On Sufficient Reasons: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Justice C T Ravikumar has held that delay in initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is condonable on sufficient grounds. "When the limitation period for initiating CIRP under Section 9, IBC is to be reckoned from the date of default, as opposed to the date of commencement of IBC and the period prescribed therefor, is three years as provided by Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the same would commence from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 it is incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to consider the claim for condonation of the delay when once the proceeding concerned is found filed beyond the period of limitation..As relates Section 5 of the Limitation Act showing 'sufficient cause' is the only criterion for condoning delay. 'Sufficient Cause' is the cause for which a party could not be blamed. Sabarmati Gas Limited v Shah Alloys Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Insolvency Resolution Of Company Will Not Extinguish Director's Liability Under Section 138 NI Act : Supreme Court

The approval of resolution plan of a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 will not extinguish the criminal liability of its erstwhile director under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, held the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and JB Pardiwala held that the company's director cannot seek discharge from N.I. Act proceedings on the ground that creditor's debt stood settled in the proceedings under IBC.

The short-judgment authored by Justice Kaul (on behalf of himself and Justice Oka) stated that IBC proceedings cannot bar Section 138 NI Act proceedings against the director.

Justice Pardiwala penned down a separate concurring judgment with the following conclusions:

• After passing of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of IBC by the Adjudicating Authority and in the light of Section 32A of IBC, the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act will stand terminated only in relation to the Corporate Debtor if the same is taken over by a new management; and
• Proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act in relation to the signatories/directors who are liable/covered by the two provisos to Section 32A(1) will continue in accordance with law. Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

IBC- Resolution Professional Entitled To Take Control Of Corporate Debtor's Rights In Assets Licensed To Third Parties : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a resolution professional is entitled to take control of the rights of a corporate debtor in assets which are licensed to third parties. Such an action of the RP will come within the ambit of Section 25 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

A Bench comprising of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the assets owned by a third-party, but in the possession of the Corporate Debtor held under contractual arrangements, are excluded from the definition of “assets” in Section 18 of IBC, however, the said exclusion does not extend to Section 25 of IBC. Therefore, the Explanation to Section 18 is inapplicable to Section 25 of IBC. Victory Iron Works Ltd. v Jitendra Lohia & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193

IBC- Once Resolution Plan Is Approved, No Modifications Are Permissible : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the declaration made by the NCLT to the effect that the trademarks “Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi”, which originally belonged to Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. (“DCHL/Corporate Debtor”), continues to be under the ownership of DCHL post the approval of resolution plan, would amount to impermissible modification of resolution plan as the same was silent on this aspect.

The Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi upheld the NCLAT order wherein it was held that any right or ownership claimed after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC stands extinguished and accordingly the Successful Resolution Applicant could only use the Corporate Debtor's existing trademarks without financial implication, but such trademarks could no longer be considered under ownership of the Corporate Debtor.

"...once the Resolution Plan stands approved, no alterations/modifications are permissible. It is either to be approved or disapproved, but any modification after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, based on its commercial wisdom, is not open for judicial review unless it is found to be not in conformity with the mandate of the IBC Code", the bench observed. SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v Deccan Chronicle Marketeers & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231

IBC | Section 9 Petition Not To Be Dismissed If Few Invoices Are Time Barred But Remaining Invoices Are Not; Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, has held that when a petition under Section 9 of IBC is filed based on several invoices and some of the invoices are time barred, then NCLT must consider the remaining invoices which are within limitation and whether they cross the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore. The Section 9 petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground that some of the invoices are time barred. M/S Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. v M/S K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 270

IBC| Principle Of Commercial Wisdom Not Validate A Decision Taken By CoC In Contravention Of Law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath, has held that the principle of 'Commercial Wisdom' of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) cannot brush aside the shortcomings of the CoC in cases where decision making was done in contravention to a law which is in force for the time being. The Bench has upheld the NCLAT's order whereby the Successful Resolution Applicant was declared ineligible in terms of Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, since he had submitted two resolution plans, one in individual capacity and one in the capacity of Managing Trustee of the Trust.

On the aspect of commercial wisdom of CoC in approval of resolution plan, the Bench observed that “The principles underlying the decisions of this Court respecting the commercial wisdom of CoC cannot be over-expanded to brush aside a significant shortcoming in the decision making of CoC when it had not duly taken note of the operation of any provision of law for the time being in force.” M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

No Priority For Workers' Dues After Liquidation Of Company Under IBC: Supreme Court Upholds Section 327(7) Of Companies Act 2013

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna has held upheld the constitutional validity of Section 327(7) of the Companies Act, 2013, which holds that workers' dues will not get preferential payment in the event a company undergoes liquidation as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

“The enactment of the IBC and Section 53 of IBC necessitated amendment to the Companies Act 2013. The object and purpose of amending the Companies Act 2013 and to exclude Sections 326 and 327 in the event of liquidation of a company under IBC seem to be that there may not be two different provisions in respect to the winding up/ liquidation of a company. Therefore, in view of the enactment of the IBC, it was necessary to exclude the applicability of Section 326 and 327 of the 2013 Act, which cannot be said to be arbitrary, as contended on behalf of the petitioners". Moser Baer Karamchari Union through its President Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

IBC | Date Of Order Pronouncement & Time Taken To Provide Certified Copy Excluded From Limitation Period For Appeal To NCLAT : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of computing limitation for filing of appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the time taken by Tribunal for providing certified copy of order to be challenged ought to be excluded from computation of limitation.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Sanket Kumar Agarwal & Anr v APG Logistics Private Limited, has held that the date on which the order was pronounced must be excluded while computing limitation for filing of appeal against such order. Accordingly, the Bench has set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), wherein NCLAT had erroneously included the date of order pronouncement in limitation period and dismissed the appeal for being barred by limitation. Sanket Kumar Agarwal & Anr v APG Logistics Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

IBC | NCLT Has To Admit Sec 7 Petition If Debt Is Due; Decision In 'Vidarbha Industries' Based On Its Facts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that if the existence of a financial debt and its default on the part of Corporate Debtor has been proved, then the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) is left with no option apart from admitting the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The only ground on which a petition under Section 7 of IBC can be rejected is when the debt in question has not become due and payable.

The Bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, while adjudicating an appeal filed in M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank & Ors., has held that the decision in Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 407, still holds good and the NCLT must admit a petition under Section 7 of IBC once existence of debt and default is established. Further, the decision in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587, was passed based on the facts of that particular case and it did not hold anything contrary to the Innoventive Industries judgment. M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428

Supertech Insolvency: Supreme Court Approves 'Project Wise Resolution' Plan

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, has declined to grant any interim relief in respect of order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) directing 'project wise insolvency resolution process' of Supertech Ltd.'s Eco Village-II project. The Bench has observed that constituting Committee of Creditors (CoC) for all the projects of Supertech Limited would affect the ongoing projects and cause hardship to the homebuyers.

The Bench has directed that during the pendency of the appeal, any process beyond voting on the Resolution Plan should not be undertaken without specific orders of the Supreme Court in respect to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Eco Village-II project. Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v Ram Kishore Arora & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 436

Remedies Against Third-Parties Not Available Under Section 66 Of IBC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, affirmed that the remedy against third party is not available under Section 66 of IBC. The Bench further held, “We are of the considered opinion that in such circumstances, it is for the Resolution Professional or the successful resolution applicant, as the case may be, to take such civil remedies against third party, for recovery of dues payable to corporate debtor, which may be available in law. The remedy against third party, however, is not available under Section 66 of IBC, and the civil remedies which may be available in law, are independent of the said Section". Glukrich Capital Pvt Ltd vs The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 464

IBC Overrides Electricity Act; Dues To Secured Creditors At Higher Footing Than Electricity Dues : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, has observed that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was opined that the provisions of the IBC treat the dues payable to secured creditors are at a higher footing than dues payable to Central or State Government.

In this case, the NCLT had set aside an attachment of the property of the respondent Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) which was over electricity charge dues to Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) and held that PVVNL can realise its dues by participating in the liquidation process as per the IBC. The NCLAT also approved this view.

Further, noting that State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 743 dealt with a case relating to resolution process and not liquidation process, the Court opined that the judgment in Rainbow Papers has to be confined to the facts of that case. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Raman Ispat Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534

EPFO Employees Must Comply With IBC Timeline For Filing Claims; Default Officers Must Face Action: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SV Bhatti, has held that the Commissioner and employees of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) must ensure that they comply with the timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Apex Court also stated that in case of failure to comply with the timelines, action must be taken against erring employees.

"..we are of the view that the Commissioner and employees of the EPFO must take steps to ensure that there is compliance with the timelines provided under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Failure may have legal consequences. The employees of the EPFO must be aware of the consequences in order to ensure compliance. In case there is dereliction of duty, action should be taken against erring employees in accordance with law." Employees Provident Fund Organization V. Fanendra Harakchand Munot 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734

IBC - Liquidator Can't Cancel Valid Auction On Mere Expectation Of Fetching Higher Price; No Unfettered Discretion: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, has held that even though the highest bidder in an auction sale under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has no indefeasible right to demand acceptance of his bid, the liquidator, if such a bid is rejected must furnish reasons for the same in the rejection order.

The mere expectation of the Liquidator that a higher price may be obtained is not a good ground to cancel an otherwise valid auction. The Court also held that once an auction is complete, the liquidator does not have absolute or unfettered discretion to cancel the auction, unless it is found that fraud or collusion had vitiated it.

“..while the highest bidder has no indefeasible right to demand acceptance of his bid, the Liquidator if he does not want to accept the bid of the highest bidder has to apply his mind to the relevant factors. Such application of mind must be visible or manifest in the rejection order itself.” Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited V. Punjab National Bank & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 753

IBC | Cannot Ask Successful Resolution Applicant To Pay Arrears Payable By Corporate Debtor For Grant/Restoration Of Electricity Connection: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), once the Resolution Plan stands approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Electricity Department cannot demand payment of arrears, which were payable by the Corporate Debtor, from the Successful Resolution Applicant for restoration/grant of electricity connection.

The Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N Bhatti, has held that the 'clean slate principle' would stand negated if the Successful Resolution Applicant is asked to pay the arrears payable by the Corporate Debtor for the grant of an electricity connection in her/his name. Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Limited & Anr. V Jagannath Sponge Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 788

IBC- Admitting Claims After Resolution Plan Has Been Accepted By COC Would Make CIRP An Endless Process: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, has held that admitting claims after the Resolution Plan has been accepted by the Committee of Creditors (COC) under IBC, even though the Adjudicating Authority has yet to approve the plan, would make the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) an endless process.

The Court was considering whether the claim pertaining to an arbitral award, in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), could be admitted after the resolution plan had been approved by the COC. “We find it difficult to unleash the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the resolution applicant” the Apex Court said while dismissing the plea of the claimant.

“The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel, [1 (2020) 8 SCC 534] the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC.” M/S. RPS Infrastructure Ltd V. Mukul Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773

Homebuyers Who Secure RERA Decrees Can't Be Treated Differently From Other Financial Creditors Under IBC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, has held that homebuyers cannot be treated differently from other "financial creditors" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 just because they have secured orders from the authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016.

The bench set aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which held that beneficiary of orders of the RERA Authority should be treated differently from other home buyer allottees. Home buyers who did not approach authorities under RER Act were given the benefit of 50% better terms than that given to those who approached RERA or who were decree holders. Vishal Chelani and others v. Debashis Nanda 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 894

IBC | Doctrine Of Election Can't Prevent Financial Creditor From Initiating CIRP Against Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the 'Doctrine of Election' cannot be applied to prevent a Financial Creditor from approaching the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against a Corporate Debtor, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The Doctrine of Election is embodied in the law of evidence, which bars prosecution of the same right in two different fora based on the same cause of action.

The Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath, has observed, “The question of election between the fora for enforcement of debt under the 1993 Act and initiation of CIRP under the IBC arises only after a recovery certificate is issued. The reliefs under the two statutes are different and once CIRP results in declaration of moratorium, the enforcement mechanism under the 1993 Act or the SARFAESI Act gets suspended. In such circumstances, after issue of recovery certificate, the financial creditor ought to have option for enforcing recovery through a new forum instead of sticking on to the mechanism through which recovery certificate was issued. Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of IBC Provisions Relating To Personal Guarantors; Says Adjudicatory Role Can't Be Read Into Sec 97

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, has upheld the constitutionality of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) relating to Personal Guarantors' Insolvency Resolution, which were introduced through the amendments made in 2019.

The Court held that these provisions (Section 95 to 100 of IBC) cannot be held as unconstitutional for not affording an opportunity of hearing to the personal guarantors before the insolvency petition filed by creditors is admitted against them and the moratorium is automatically applied against them as soon as the insolvency petition is filed.

"The statute (IBC) does not suffer from any manifest arbitrariness to violate Art 14 of the Constitution,"

The bench further held that it cannot read an adjudicatory role into these provisions and that the entire process of timelines would be rendered negatory if the role of adjudicator is changed. For the Court to change the adjudicatory role envisaged under these provisions would amount to "rewriting the legislative functions", the Court said. Surendra B. Jiwrajika and Anr. vs. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

IBC | No Casual Interference With Commercial Wisdom Of CoC: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Direction To Reevaluate Corporate Debtor's Assets

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, has set aside an order whereby the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) kept the approval of a resolution plan in abeyance while directing an Official Liquidator to conduct re-valuation of the Corporate Debtor's assets. Consequently, the order of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) affirming the NCLT's order has also been set aside.

An application under Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was filed by the Resolution Professional before NCLT, seeking approval of the resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant(SRA). The valuation of Corporate Debtor's assets was already done Resolution Professional as per the provisions of IBC and its Regulations. However, the NCLT kept the resolution plan in abeyance and appointed an Official Liquidator to conduct re-valuation of assets.

The Bench has held, “In the case at hand, we find that there was no occasion before the Adjudicating Authority NCLT to be swayed only on the per se ground that the hair-cut would be about 94.25% and that it was not convinced that the fair value of the assets have been projected in proper manner as the bid of the appellant was very close to the fair value of the assets of ACIL. Ordering revaluation of the assets, by the OL, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, in-charge of the particular area, cannot be justified.” Ramkrishna Forgings Limited v Ravindra Loonkar & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

IBC | When Matter Heard But No Order Pronounced On The Same Day, Limitation To Commence From The Date When Order Gets Uploaded: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, has held that when the NCLT hears a matter on a particular date but does not pronounce the order on the same date, then the limitation for filing an appeal from such order before the NCLAT under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), would commence from the date when the Order of NCLT gets uploaded.

However, in cases where matter was heard and order was pronounced on the same day by the NCLT, limitation would commence from the date of pronouncement of order and not its upload.

The NCLT heard a matter on 17.05.2023 but no order was pronounced or passed. The order was uploaded on 30.05.2023. The Appellant filed an appeal against the NCLT order. before NCLAT The issue was whether limitation under Section 61(2) of IBC would commence from 17.05.2023 or 30.05.2023.

The bench while differentiating between 'hearing' of a case and 'pronouncement' of order in view of NCLT Rules 2016, and has held that the time for filing an appeal would commence only when the order appealed from was uploaded, since prior to that date no order was pronounced. Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and Others Civil Appeal Nos 7467-7468 of 2023

Sec 240A IBC | Even If MSME Registration Obtained Post Commencement Of CIRP, Promoter Eligible To Submit Resolution Plan: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, has held that the Promoter of a Corporate Debtor is eligible to submit a resolution plan in terms of Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), even if the Corporate Debtor was registered as Micro Small Medium Enterprise (“MSME”) after commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

The Bench has set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), wherein the Promoter of a MSME Corporate Debtor was declared ineligible to submit a plan on the premise that the MSME certificate was obtained post commencement of CIRP. Hari Babu Thota2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

IBC- Properties Sold In Auction Sale Before Declaration Of Moratorium Can't Be Treated As Liquidation Asset : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the properties of a defaulting borrower sold in an auction sale could not be treated as liquidation assets if the sale was concluded before the declaration of a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. While doing so, the Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath set aside the order passed by the National Company Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT).

“No reason was cited before us to demonstrate as to why the sale certificate would be held illegal. No case has been made out before us on behalf of the respondents about any defect or default in forwarding the sale certificate in terms of Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. On the other hand, all the three respondents have concurred at the time of hearing on the point that the sale stood concluded.” HALDIRAM INCORPORATION PVT. LTD. vs. AMRIT HATCHERIES PVT. LTD.2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1029