9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1910 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyLiquidation of Corporate Debtor - section 33 of 1 B Code - HELD THAT - CIRP period of 180 days completed on 28.01.2019. IRP requsted this authority to give extension of 90 days as per section 12(2) of the IBC. However, his request was not supported by the CoC. CoC did not pass such resolution. Hence, his request was turned down. This authority made enquiry with the IRP whether he received any resolution plan but IRP submitted that there was no response from anybody. None has submitted even Eol - there is dispute going on about the assets of the corporate debtor, i.e. residential flat. Some parties filed title suit in the Civil Court at Alipore. This may be the reason that none submitted the plan. Be that as it may, no resolution plan is received by IRP and the CoC. Although, one M/s. Hotel Polo Torner Development has submitted Eol but no plan is received from them within 180 days. It appears from record that during CIRP, the IRP held eight CoC meetings. The CoC did not confirm his appointment as RP. The insolvency of the corporate debtor could not be resolved for want of resolution plan. CIRP period is already over. Hence, this authority has left with no option but to pass order of liquidation of the corporate debtor under section 33 of 1 B Code. Hence, proceed to pass an order requiring the Corporate Debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in the Chapter III of Part II of I B Code. Corporate Debtor- M/s.RLA Holdings Private Limited is liquidated - Application allowed.
Issues involved:
- Application under section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) - Dispute over the assets of the corporate debtor - Failure to receive any resolution plan within the stipulated time - Liquidation order under section 33 of the I&B Code Analysis: 1. Application under section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016: The Financial Creditor filed an application against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on a financial debt. The Corporate Debtor failed to pay ?39,18,000, leading to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the I&B Code. 2. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP): After the admission of the Corporate Debtor in CIRP, Mr. Mohit Bhuteria was initially appointed as the IRP but later expressed his inability to continue. Subsequently, Mr. Ardhendu Shekhar Raut was appointed as the IRP following the recommendation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). 3. Dispute over the assets of the corporate debtor: The IRP discovered a residential flat owned by the corporate debtor, which was allegedly in dispute as various parties, including an occupier, challenged its status as the corporate debtor's asset. This dispute hindered the resolution process, as evidenced by pending applications and legal actions. 4. Failure to receive any resolution plan within the stipulated time: Despite multiple meetings and public announcements, no resolution plan was submitted within the mandated period. The absence of a viable resolution plan led to the inability to resolve the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor within the stipulated CIRP period. 5. Liquidation order under section 33 of the I&B Code: Due to the lack of a resolution plan and the completion of the CIRP period without successful resolution, the Tribunal was compelled to order the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under section 33 of the I&B Code. The Liquidator was appointed, and the process of liquidation was directed to commence in accordance with the statutory regulations. In conclusion, the judgment reflects the procedural and substantive aspects of insolvency resolution under the I&B Code, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution plans and the consequences of failure to achieve resolution within the prescribed timelines. The dispute over the assets of the corporate debtor and the subsequent liquidation order underscore the significance of adherence to the statutory framework for effective insolvency proceedings.
|
