Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)Committee Of Creditors Of Essar Steel ... vs Satish Kumar Gupta on 15 November, 2019
"157. These are binding precedents. Absent a clear
legislative provision, this Court will not, by a process
of interpretation, confer on the adjudicating authority
a power to direct an unwilling CoC to renegotiate a
submitted resolution plan or agree to its withdrawal,
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1550, 1551 & 1552 of 2023
28
at the behest of the resolution applicant. The
adjudicating authority can only direct the CoC to re-
consider certain elements of the resolution plan to
ensure compliance under Section 30(2) IBC, before
exercising its powers of approval or rejection, as the
case may be, under Section 31 [Essar Steel (India)
Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531,
para 73 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443] .
State Of Andhra Pradesh Etc. Etc vs M. Lakshmi Devi Etc. Etc on 13 January, 1993
This Court
observed : (P. Laxmi Devi case [State of A.P. v. P.
Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720] , SCC p. 751, para 80)
"80. ... As regards economic and other regulatory
legislation judicial restraint must be observed by
the court and greater latitude must be given to the
legislature while adjudging the constitutionality of
the statute because the court does not consist of
economic or administrative experts. It has no
expertise in these matters, and in this age of
specialisation when policies have to be laid down
with great care after consulting the specialists in
the field, it will be wholly unwise for the court to
encroach into the domain of the executive or
legislative (sic legislature) and try to enforce its
own views and perceptions."
Ebix Singapore Pte Ltd. vs Committee Of Creditors Of Educomp ... on 13 September, 2021
24. Before proceeding further, we need to notice the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd.' (supra) which has been
relied by the Appellant. 'Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd.' was a case where after
approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, the Resolution Applicant filed
application before the Adjudicating Authority for withdrawal of the
Resolution Plan. Two applications for withdrawal of the Resolution Plan were
rejected twice by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the third application
which was filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant was allowed by the
Adjudicating Authority which order came to be challenged before the
Appellate Tribunal.
Section 31 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Smt. P. Laxmi Devi on 25 February, 2008
This Court
observed : (P. Laxmi Devi case [State of A.P. v. P.
Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720] , SCC p. 751, para 80)
"80. ... As regards economic and other regulatory
legislation judicial restraint must be observed by
the court and greater latitude must be given to the
legislature while adjudging the constitutionality of
the statute because the court does not consist of
economic or administrative experts. It has no
expertise in these matters, and in this age of
specialisation when policies have to be laid down
with great care after consulting the specialists in
the field, it will be wholly unwise for the court to
encroach into the domain of the executive or
legislative (sic legislature) and try to enforce its
own views and perceptions."
1