Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Section 31 –For a Resolution Plan containing a combination, the CCI’s approval to the Resolution Plan, in our opinion, must be obtained before and consequently, the CoC’s examination and approval should be only after the CCI’s decision.- The proviso to Section 31(4) of IBC mentions that the approval to the Resolution Plan from CCI shall be obtained ‘prior’ to its approval by the CoC- Therefore, to interpret the specific word to mean that such an approval can be obtained even ‘after’ and not necessarily ‘prior’ to the approval by the CoC would amount to reconstructing a statutory provision, which is not permissible. (Para 65)
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Sections 61,62 – Once the CIRP is initiated, the nature of proceedings are no longer in personam but rather become in rem- The expression ‘any person aggrieved’ in the context of the IBC has been held to be indicative of there being no rigid locus requirements to institute an appeal challenging an order of the NCLT before the NCLAT or an order of the NCLAT before Supreme Court.
Competition Act – Section 53B, 53T – Even those persons that bring to CCI information of practices that are contrary to the provisions of the Competition Act, could be said to be ‘aggrieved’. (Para 26)
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Resolution Professional does not possess any adjudicatory powers under the IBC. In fact, the role of the Resolution Professional, as a facilitator of the CIPR, is almost entirely administrative in nature. (Para 116)
Interpretation of Statutes – Rules of interpretation permit courts to read a certain word, term or phrase in the statute differently from its plain meaning if it leads to absurdity but the courts must always remain conscious of the fine dividing line, separating adjudication and legislation, which must not be crossed. (Para 64)