In Brief
A corporate debtor engaged in tea cultivation challenged an insolvency petition filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 by relying on Section 16G(1)(c) of the Tea Act, 1953, which requires Central Government consent before initiating winding-up proceedings. The Supreme Court held that Section 16G applies only when the Central Government or its authorized body has actually taken over the management of the tea units. Since the corporate debtor retained management control, Section 16G did not apply. The Court affirmed that the IBC provisions override the Tea Act, and insolvency proceedings can proceed without prior Central Government consent.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.