Facts & Background:

• The petitioner was the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India, a statutory body responsible for regulating and overseeing the insolvency resolution process in India.
• The State Bank of India, a public sector bank, was involved in the insolvency resolution process for Su Kam Power Systems Ltd and Respondents.
• The matter originated from the case of State Bank of India v. Su Kam Power Systems Ltd. CA-809(PB)/2018, wherein SBI filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking a 90-day extension for completing the CIRP.
• The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, observed that an expression of interest had been invited. However, no resolution plans were submitted in response.
• On 05.09.2018, the NCLT declared Regulation 36A of the Insolvency Resolution Process Regulations, 2016, ultra vires Section 240(1) of the IBC, even without a specific challenge to its validity.
• The NCLT further examined the bifurcation of the CIRP into inviting expressions of interest and subsequently seeking resolution plans under Regulation 36A, holding that it impeded the expeditious completion of the Resolution Process.
• The Petitioner challenged the impugned order before the Court, asserting that the NCLT did not have jurisdiction to determine the validity and legality of the Regulations.
  

Main Issue:

• Whether the NCLT correctly held that Regulation 36A of the Insolvency Resolution Process Regulations, 2016, was ultra vires Section 240(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016?