Adjudicating Authority cannot grant blanket deemed approvals for statutory requirements under Companies Act, FEMA, or SEBI laws.

The Appellant was the successful auction purchaser of the Corporate Debtor ("CD"), Pratibha Industries Ltd., which was sold as a "going concern" during liquidation.

Following the sale confirmation, the Appellant filed an application, I.A. (IBC)/1728/MB/2025, before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) seeking various reliefs and concessions.

On 24/06/2025, the NCLT granted several concessions regarding the extinguishment of debts and other reliefs under Paragraph 13.

The Appellant challenged the order to the limited extent that the NCLT did not approve the "Indicative Acquisition Structure" sought in Para 5.4 of the application, which requested the court to deem all statutory approvals from authorities like SEBI and RBI as already granted.

Whether a Successful Bidder in a liquidation sale is entitled to a blanket judicial order deeming that all necessary statutory approvals under the Companies Act, FEMA, and SEBI Act have been obtained without making separate applications to the respective regulatory authorities.

The court examined the scope of powers of the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC").

It focused on the principle that while the NCLT can grant certain concessions to ensure the CD remains a "going concern," it cannot preempt the statutory jurisdiction of other regulatory bodies.

The court maintained that provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ("FEMA"), and the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("SEBI Act") require specific compliance and applications to the relevant Statutory Regulating Authorities.

The Tribunal analyzed the relief sought in Para 5.4 of the Appellant's application, which asked that the acquisition plan be treated as if necessary approvals from various regulators were already obtained.

The Court observed that while the NCLT had already granted substantial reliefs regarding debt extinguishment in its impugned order, the specific prayer in Para 5.4 was "too wide".

The NCLAT reasoned that a judicial order cannot bypass the statutory role of regulators; the successful bidder must independently approach the relevant authorities for permissions required under law.

The Tribunal found no error in the NCLT’s refusal to grant such an all-encompassing exemption, as judicial approval of a sale does not automatically equate to statutory compliance under specialized laws like FEMA or the SEBI Act.

The Court clarified that the successful auction purchaser is at liberty to make appropriate applications before various Regulatory Authorities, which must then be considered by those authorities in accordance with the law.

The NCLT's original order remained undisturbed.