The Supreme Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo in Byju Raveendran's case and prohibited the Resolution Professional from conducting meetings of the Committee of Creditors.
The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (CJI), Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, reviewed an appeal, a Special Leave Petition (SLP), and miscellaneous interim applications. The Court emphasized that pending the delivery of the judgment, the Interim Resolution Professional must maintain the status quo and refrain from holding any meetings of the Committee of Creditors. This directive ensures that the proceedings remain unaffected until the Court renders its decision.
In the recent Supreme Court proceedings, both parties presented their arguments, culminating in the conclusion of the hearing phase. This marked a significant moment in the case, as the Court then reserved its judgment, signifying that it would take time to deliberate and deliver a decision at a later date.
In the interim, the Court issued a crucial order directing the Interim Resolution Professional to maintain the status quo. This order specifically prohibited the Resolution Professional from holding any meetings of the Committee of Creditors until the judgment was pronounced. The rationale behind this directive was to preserve the existing state of affairs and prevent any actions that could potentially influence or disrupt the proceedings before the Court. By ensuring that no meetings were held during this critical period, the Court aimed to safeguard the integrity of the ongoing legal process and uphold the interests of all parties involved.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The Supreme Court on August 14, 2024, stayed the Order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) decision dated August 2, 2024, closing the insolvency proceedings and directed that the settlement amount of Rs. 158 Crores be maintained in a separate escrow account, pending further orders while permitting the filing of the appeal and addressing procedural matters without implying a final judgment on the substantive issues of the appeal.
The Supreme Court, in its order dated August 14, 2024, addressed several procedural and substantive issues related to a Civil Appeal and associated interlocutory applications.
IA No. 175985 of 2024: Permission was granted to file the appeal. This application sought to allow the appeal to proceed despite potential procedural deficiencies or delays.
IA No. 175989 of 2024: Permission was granted to file the appeal without the certified or plain copy of the impugned order. This indicates the Court's leniency towards procedural requirements, allowing the appeal to be lodged even without the formal documentation typically required.
The Court has ordered the issuance of a notice to the opposing parties, returnable on August 23, 2024. This means that the parties involved in the appeal will be formally notified and expected to respond or appear on the specified date.
The operation of the impugned judgment and order dated August 2, 2024, from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 262 of 2024 has been stayed pending further orders. This stay halts the enforcement or execution of the NCLAT’s decision until the Supreme Court issues further directions or resolves the appeal.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is required to maintain the amount of Rs. 158 crores, which was realized under the settlement, in a separate escrow account. This account is to be maintained to ensure compliance with any further orders from the Supreme Court, thereby safeguarding the funds involved in the litigation.
The Court has directed the respective parties to file a short list of dates and written submissions not exceeding three pages. These documents should be emailed to a specified address, which indicates a streamlined process for preparing the case for final disposal.
The Supreme Court’s order facilitates the continuation of the appeal by allowing procedural leniency and addressing immediate concerns such as the stay of the impugned NCLAT order and the maintenance of significant funds in escrow.
The Court has set a timetable for further proceedings, including the submission of written arguments and the final hearing of the appeal. This order reflects the Court’s approach to managing the appeal efficiently while ensuring compliance with procedural norms and protecting the interests of the parties involved.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines Press Release and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
Comments