MISHRA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] versus RAVE SCANS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

MISHRA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] versus RAVE SCANS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Since the resolution process and approval occurred before the amended Regulation 38 came into force, NCLAT's direction to match pay-out to dissenting creditor was not justified. The original resolution plan was not discriminatory under the applicable law at the time, hence NCLAT's order was set aside and NCLT's order restored.

Parties
Appellant: Rahul Jain; Respondent: Rave Scans Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent: Hero Fincorp Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From NCLAT Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; NCLAT order set aside; NCLT order restored.
Legal Topics
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Discrimination Between Creditors, Resolution Plan Approval

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahul Jain

Appellant

Rave Scans Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Hero Fincorp Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From NCLAT Decision

  1. 1 Whether the resolution plan discriminated against dissenting financial creditor
  2. 2 Applicability of amended Regulation 38 to resolution plan prepared and approved before amendment

Ratio Decidendi

Since the resolution process and approval occurred before the amended Regulation 38 came into force, NCLAT's direction to match pay-out to dissenting creditor was not justified. The original resolution plan was not discriminatory under the applicable law at the time, hence NCLAT's order was set aside and NCLT's order restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; NCLAT order set aside; NCLT order restored.

Orders

  • NCLAT’s order and directions set aside
  • Order of NCLT restoring the approved resolution plan