9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2158 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyLiquidation of Company - absence of any viable Resolution Plan - Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - This Appellate Tribunal held that all the Resolution Plans were taken into consideration by the Committee of Creditors . However, in absence of any viable Resolution Plan and due to paucity of time they recommended for liquidation of the Company. Viability or feasibility of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority or this Appellate Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Committee of Creditors . They are the experts to find out the viability and the feasibility of a plan and the matrix. As the aforesaid factors are technical in nature which can be determined by experts like the Financial Creditors , we are not inclined to sit in appeal over the decision of the Committee of Creditors to find out whether one or other Resolution Plan is viable and feasible or not. Appeal dismissed.
Issues: Appeal against liquidation order under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Delay in preferring the appeal; Viability and feasibility of the Resolution Plan; Compliance with Section 29(2) requirements; Deposits made by the Resolution Applicant; Challenge by Shareholders regarding Committee of Creditors' decision; Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal.
1. Appeal against Liquidation Order: The Appellant filed an appeal against the order for liquidation of the company under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The delay of five days in preferring the appeal was condoned by the Tribunal. 2. Viability and Feasibility of Resolution Plan: The Appellant argued that the Resolution Plan was viable and feasible, but it was not approved by the Committee of Creditors. The Adjudicating Authority was criticized for not recognizing the viability of the plan. However, the Resolution Professional was accused of not providing relevant information to the Resolution Applicants as required by Section 29(2). 3. Compliance with Section 29(2) Requirements: The Resolution Professional's alleged failure to comply with Section 29(2) was raised, but it was noted that the Resolution Applicant had already submitted the Resolution Plan. 4. Deposits by Resolution Applicant: The Resolution Applicant had proposed to deposit a certain amount as part of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal acknowledged that a portion of the deposit had been made, and the Resolution Applicant committed to further investments in the company's seed processing facility. 5. Challenge by Shareholders: Shareholders challenged the decision of the Committee of Creditors, claiming that other Resolution Applicants were prepared to submit plans if given the opportunity. However, the Appellate Tribunal, in a separate judgment, dismissed the appeal, stating that all Resolution Plans were considered, but due to the lack of a viable plan and time constraints, liquidation was recommended. 6. Appellate Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot question the expertise of the Committee of Creditors in determining the viability and feasibility of a Resolution Plan. The technical nature of such assessments falls within the purview of the Financial Creditors. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to review the Committee's decision and dismissed the appeal, citing no merit. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
