AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 5(24) of the I&B Code, 2016
  • Section 31 of the I&B Code.2.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 5(24) of the I&B Code, 2016
  • Section 31 of the I&B Code.2.
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals center on whether an agency — the Enforcement Directorate — can determine whether a "resolution applicant" qualifies as a "related party" under Section 5(24) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the "I&B Code"), after that question has already been decided by successive insolvency-process authorities:

  • first by the Resolution Professional under Section 30(2),
  • then by the Committee of Creditors under Section 30(4), and
  • finally by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31.

The opinion records hearings before the court: counsel for JSW Steel Ltd., the Enforcement Directorate, the Union of India, the Committee of Creditors, the Resolution Professional, and an erstwhile promoter (Sanjay Singal & Anr.) were each called. Some hearings concluded; one hearing (for the erstwhile promoter) remained inconclusive.

Procedurally, the court directed that all appeals be listed "for orders" on 4 February 2020 at 10:30 A.M., and permitted the parties to file short written submissions (not exceeding three pages) by 3 February 2020.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Enforcement Directorate can decide, at the stage after the Resolution Professional, Committee of Creditors and Adjudicating Authority have decided the related-party question for purposes of Section 29A of the I&B Code, that a resolution applicant is or is not a "related party" as defined in Section 5(24) of the I&B Code.
  2. More narrowly stated: once the Adjudicating Authority has decided the "related party" question for Section 29A, whether the Enforcement Directorate can "sit over" (i.e., revisit or override) that decision.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The provided text is an interlocutory order and contains limited substantive reasoning.

The document frames the core legal question (set out above) and records that the court heard senior counsel and other representatives for the various parties involved:

  • Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel, for JSW Steel Ltd.;
  • Mr. Zoheb Hossain, for the Enforcement Directorate;
  • Mr. Sanjay Shorey, Director, for the Union of India;
  • Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Counsel, for the Committee of Creditors;
  • Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Senior Counsel, for the Resolution Professional; and
  • Mr. Harin Raval, Senior Counsel, for erstwhile promoters Sanjay Singal & Anr. (hearing remained inconclusive).

The court did not set out an extended analytical narrative resolving the legal question in this text. Instead, it recorded the hearing status, left the matter for further consideration, scheduled the appeals for a future listed hearing "for orders," and permitted tightly limited written submissions from the parties before that hearing.

Holding and Implications

CORE RULING: The court directed that all the appeals be listed "for orders" on 4 February 2020 at 10:30 A.M., and allowed parties to file short written submissions (maximum three pages) by 3 February 2020.

Implications:

  • The order is interlocutory: it does not decide the substantive question whether the Enforcement Directorate may revisit or determine "related party" status once that issue has been decided in the insolvency process. No final determination on the central legal issue is recorded in the provided text.
  • The direct effect on the parties is procedural: further submissions are solicited and a final hearing on the appeals is scheduled. The opinion does not announce any new binding precedent or resolve the underlying statutory question at this stage.

    Jsw Steel Ltd. v. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal And Others

    1. One of the question for consideration in these appeal is whether one or other ‘resolution applicant’ is “related party” as defined under Section 5(24) of the ‘I&B Code, 2016’ can be decided by the ‘Enforcement Directorate’, once such decision is taken by the ‘Resolution Professional’ under Section 30(2), thereafter by the ‘Committee of Creditors’ under Section 30(4) and finally by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the ‘I&B Code’.

    2. In other words, once such question of “related party” is decided for the purpose of Section 29A of the ‘I&B Code’ by the Adjudicating Authority, whether ‘Enforcement Directorate’ can sit over the appeal of such decision. We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of ‘JSW Steel Ltd.’; Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of ‘Enforcement Directorate’ and Mr. Sanjay Shorey, Director on behalf of ‘Union of India’. Hearing concluded.

    3. Heard Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of ‘Committee of Creditors’ and Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the ‘Resolution Professional’. Hearing concluded.

    4. Heard Mr. Harin Raval, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of erstwhile Promoter - ‘Sanjay Singal and Anr.’. Hearing remained inconclusive. Post all the appeals for hearing under the heading ‘for orders’ on 4th February, 2020 at 10.30 A.M. on the top of the list.

    5. In the meantime, it will be open to the parties to file short written submissions, not more than 3 pages, by 3 February, 2020.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Jsw Steel Ltd. v. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal And Others
    (Jan 31, 2020)