Case Details: ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Punj Lloyd Ltd. - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 456 (NCLT-New Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ramalingam Sudhakar, CJ. & Ravindra Chaturvedi, Technical Member
- Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv., Aditya Vikram Singh & Ms Shreya Chandhok, Advs. for the Applicant.
- Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Adv. & Raghav Chadha, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, an application was filed by the financial creditor seeking initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor. The application was admitted and the corporate debtor was placed under CIRP. However, the CIRP failed as the resolution plan submitted by the sole resolution applicant was not approved by the CoC.
Consequently, the members of the CoC approved a resolution for liquidation of the corporate debtor. The Liquidator conducted 14 rounds of e-auction for the sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern. The applicant company, being the successful bidder in the e-auction, sought approval of the going concern sale transaction structure for acquisition of the corporate debtor.
The applicant also sought approval of its acquisition plan along with certain reliefs and concessions.
NCLT Held
The NCLT observed that the competent authorities may consider granting such reliefs and concessions, keeping in view the objective of the Code, since the transaction involved a going concern sale. However, the amount payable by the applicant in terms of the auction to different creditors and stakeholders, and for keeping the corporate debtor as a going concern, could not be made subject to any condition, assumption, relief, concession, or qualification.
Further, the applicant would be entitled to such reliefs, concessions, or waivers as may be available or permissible under section 32A and other applicable provisions of the Code.
The NCLT held that since the applicant had purchased the corporate debtor on an “as is where is” basis, any reliefs or concessions sought in accordance with law would be examined by the concerned authorities on their own merits.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 132 [Para 19]
- Embassy Property Developments (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2019] 112 taxmann.com 56/[2020] 157 SCL 445 (SC) [Para 22]; followed
- Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 132 [Para 19]
- Embassy Property Developments (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2019] 112 taxmann.com 56/[2020] 157 SCL 445 (SC) [Para 22]; followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 132/227 COMP CASE 251/166 SCL 237 (SC) (para 19)
- JSW Steel Ltd. v. Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal 2025 SCC Online SC 672 (para 20)
- Vaibhav Goel v. Dy. CIT [2025] 172 taxmann.com 601/255 COMP CASE 266/188 SCL 262 (SC) (para 20)
- Shiv Shakti Inter Globe Exports (P.) Ltd. v. KTC Foods (P.) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 511/172 SCL 249 (NCLAT- New Delhi) (para 21)
- Embassy Property Developments (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2019] 112 taxmann.com 56/[2020] 157 SCL 445 (SC) (para 22).
The post NCLT Approves Going Concern Sale on ‘As-Is-Where-Is’ Basis appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
