SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL versus STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL versus STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.

The Review Petitions were dismissed because the petitioners failed to show any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record as required under Order XLVII; a co-ordinate Bench's passing observations are not a ground for review and, on the merits, the impugned judgment had in fact considered Section 53 (the waterfall mechanism) and other IBC provisions and correctly held that Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 of the IBC and that the State can be a secured creditor under the GVAT Act.

Parties
Appellant: State Tax Officer; Respondent: Rainbow Papers Limited; Review Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal; Review Petitioner: Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary; Review Petitioner: State Bank of India; Review Petitioner: Indian Overseas Bank; Review Petitioner: Chandra Prakash Jain; Review Petitioner: M/s. Mekaster Engineering Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Review Petition (civil) / Decision on Review
Outcome
Review Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Review, Waterfall Mechanism, Section 53 IBC, Priority of Claims, Section 48 GVAT Act, Resolution Plan, Liquidation
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Taxation Civil Procedure Review Waterfall Mechanism Section 53 IBC Priority of Claims Section 48 GVAT Act +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State Tax Officer

Appellant

Rainbow Papers Limited

Respondent

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal

Review Petitioner

Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary

Review Petitioner

State Bank of India

Review Petitioner

Indian Overseas Bank

Review Petitioner

Chandra Prakash Jain

Review Petitioner

M/s. Mekaster Engineering Ltd.

Review Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Review Petition (civil) / Decision on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Review Petitioners made out a case for review under Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules read with Order XLVII CPC
  2. 2 Whether the impugned judgment failed to consider the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC and other provisions of the IBC
  3. 3 Whether Section 53 of the IBC overrides Section 48 of the GVAT Act for priority of claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Review Petitions were dismissed because the petitioners failed to show any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record as required under Order XLVII; a co-ordinate Bench's passing observations are not a ground for review and, on the merits, the impugned judgment had in fact considered Section 53 (the waterfall mechanism) and other IBC provisions and correctly held that Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 of the IBC and that the State can be a secured creditor under the GVAT Act.

Court Disposition

Review Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • All Review Petitions dismissed