LANDMARK CASE

ArcelorMittal India v. Satish Kumar Gupta

(2019) 2 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · Insolvency law

At a glance

Citation: (2019) 2 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Insolvency law
In one line: Section 29A was explained to bar connected persons, and ArcelorMittal was allowed to proceed after clearing dues.

1 Facts

Bidders for Essar Steel were challenged as ineligible under Section 29A of the IBC.

2 Issue

Who is ineligible to submit resolution plans?

3 What the court decided

Section 29A was explained to bar connected persons, and ArcelorMittal was allowed to proceed after clearing dues.

4 Why it matters

Important for resolution applicants.

5 Think about it

Why does the IBC bar some promoters?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Insolvency law

Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531
Innoventive Industries v. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407
Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software (2018) 1 SCC 353
Pioneer Urban Land v. Union of India (2019) 8 SCC 416
Swiss Ribbons v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra Arjun Gopal v. Union of India →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.