9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1329 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyLiquidation Order - revival of Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT - Effort should be made to revive the Corporate Debtor rather than to eliminate the same, we find that this is a fit case for us to exercise inherent powers under Rule 11 of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLAT Rules, 2016 - in short), to do justice. It is necessary to set aside the liquidation Order as well as the CIRP proceedings. The Impugned Order of liquidation and the earlier proceedings of CIRP initiated on admission of Application under Section 9 of IBC, exercising powers under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 - Corporate Debtor is released from the rigour of law and is allowed to functionindependently through its Board of Directors. The Liquidator will hand back the records and management of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, to the Board of Directors. Appeal disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) admitted against Corporate Debtor leading to liquidation order. 2. Appeal filed against the liquidation order citing incorrect application of sections and procedural irregularities. 3. Settlement of dues with Financial Creditor and Operational Creditors. 4. Consideration of reviving the Corporate Debtor and setting aside the liquidation order. Analysis: 1. The matter involved the admission of an Application under Section 9 of the IBC against the Corporate Debtor, resulting in the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and subsequent liquidation proceedings. The Committee of Creditors (COC) decided on liquidation rather than resolution, leading to the liquidation order by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. The appeal was filed against the liquidation order, arguing that procedural irregularities occurred, such as the application of the wrong sections and lack of proper consideration of resolution plans. The Counsel contended that the COC's decision on liquidation was abrupt and not in line with the correct provisions of the IBC. 3. The settlement of dues with the Financial Creditor and Operational Creditors was a crucial aspect of the case. The Appellant had settled with the ICICI Bank, the only Financial Creditor in the COC, and also settled dues with several Operational Creditors, obtaining their consent for the revival of the Corporate Debtor. 4. In considering the revival of the Corporate Debtor, the Tribunal emphasized the objective of the IBC, which is resolution over liquidation. The Tribunal exercised its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, to set aside the liquidation order and the earlier CIRP proceedings. The Corporate Debtor was released from the liquidation process and allowed to function independently through its Board of Directors. 5. The Tribunal directed the Liquidator to hand back the management of the Corporate Debtor to the Board of Directors and instructed compliance with consent letters from Operational Creditors for revival. Any grievances from Operational Creditors regarding non-receipt of amounts would lead to a review of the orders. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the liquidation order, released the Corporate Debtor, and allowed for its revival under the supervision of the Board of Directors, emphasizing the resolution over liquidation as per the objectives of the IBC.
|
