Interestingly, the convict cited the SC’s 2001 judgment in Anil Rai case had ruled that if a HC bench did not pronounce the verdict within six months of reserving judgment, then the concerned HC chief justice would withdraw the case to another bench for fresh hearing.
Does the six-month deadline for pronouncement of verdict by the HC apply to the SC? It appears not. In an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code related case, which must be resolved in a time-bound manner, the SC reserved verdict on March 16. But the judgment is yet to be delivered, even after more than nine months.
A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath reserved verdict after hearing counsel for parties – AM Singhvi, Jaideep Gupta, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sanjay Kapur, Haripriya Padmanabhan and Goutham Shivshankar.
In its order reserving verdict, the bench said, “It has been informed during the course of submissions that a meeting of the Committee of Creditors pursuant to the impugned order of the NCLAT had taken place on March 3 and a further meeting is slated for March 21.” The bench allowed the proceedings of the CoC to continue but clarified that the outcome would remain subject to SC verdict, which would now be expected in the new year when the court resumes work after winter break.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, has stayed the implementation of an order approving MGM Healthcare managing director M K Rajagopalan’s ₹423 crore bid to take over Appu Hotels Limited, which owns and operates five-star Le Meridien hotels in Chennai and Coimbatore.
India’s largest bank, SBI, is a financial creditor with an admitted claim of Rs 103 crore and has 26% voting share in the CoC, the highest among voting shareholders. CoC on January 22 last year had approved a resolution plan of Rs 423 crore submitted by Rajagopalan, which received 87% of votes including the SBI.
NCLAT, on a petition by Periasamy Palani Gounder had stayed the resolution plan. Halting the IBC process ongoing since May 2020. SBI in its written submission had requested the SC for an early decision as further delay would cause depreciation of assets and breach the mandate of speedy resolution of IBC proceedings.