Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities  ||  Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged  ||  Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act  ||  Delhi HC: Unmarried Granddaughter’s Limited Estate Can Become Absolute if Pre-Existing Right  ||  MP High Court: Labour Laws are Beneficial, and Hyper-Technical Limitation Views Must be Avoided  ||  Calcutta HC: Supplementary Chargesheet Filed Late in NDPS Trial is Valid if Based on Fresh Evidence  ||  Delhi High Court: Co-Accused’s Abscondence Can Be a Relevant Factor in Granting NDPS Bail  ||  P &H HC: Unfavourable Orders Cannot Justify Trial Transfer; Courts Must Prevent Forum Hunting  ||  SC: UGC Regulations Override State Law on Forming Search Committees For University VC Appointments  ||  SC: State Cannot Deny Regularisation to Long-Serving Contract Staff Appointed Through Due Process    

Shekhar Resorts Limited (Unit Hotel Orient Taj) vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (05 Jan 2023)

Appellant cannot be punished for not doing something which was impossible for it to do

MANU/SC/0015/2023

Insolvency

The original writ Petitioner has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court by which the High Court has dismissed writ petition preferred by the Appellant seeking direction to the Respondents for consideration of the case of the Petitioner under the scheme “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019” (“Scheme of 2019”)

By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition on the grounds that (i) the High Court shall not issue a direction contrary to the Scheme; (ii) the relief sought cannot be granted as the Designated Committee under the Scheme is not existing.

The short question which is posed for consideration before present Court is, whether, when it was impossible for the Appellant to deposit the settlement amount in view of the bar under the IBC, the Appellant can be punished for no fault of the appellant?

The Appellant cannot be punished for not doing something which was impossible for it to do. There was a legal impediment in the way of the Appellant to make any payment during the moratorium. Even if the appellant wanted to deposit settlement amount within the stipulated period, it could not do so in view of the bar under the IBC as, during the moratorium, no payment could have been made. The Appellant cannot be rendered remediless and should not be made to suffer due to a legal impediment which was the reason for it and/or not doing the act within the prescribed time.

As the Appellant was not in a position to deposit the settlement amount at the relevant time, more particularly on or before 30.06.2020 due to legal impediment and the bar to make the payment of settlement amount in view of the mortarium under the IBC, and as it is found that the Appellant was otherwise entitled to the benefit under the Scheme as the Form No.1 submitted by the Appellant has been accepted, the Form No.3 determining the settlement amount has been issued, the High Court has erred in refusing to grant any relief to the appellant as prayed.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the payment of Rs.1,24,28,500 already deposited by the Appellant be appropriated towards settlement dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019” and the Appellant be issued discharge certificate. Appeal allowed.

Tags : PAYMENT   SCHEME   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved