2019 (11) TMI 1692 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Approval of Resolution Plan - Seeking to declare that the decision taken by Committee of Creditors (CoC) in its 8th meeting - HELD THAT - Application filed u/s 33 (2) of the IBC, 2016, putting M/s. IDEB Projects Pvt. Ltd., to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter III (Liquidation Process) of Part II of the Code and appointing Shri Velayudham Jayavel, as Liquidator, subject to the terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the parties in the light of the extant provisions of the IBBI, the instant Applications are not maintainable under the extant provisions of Code. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application seeking to declare the rejection of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
2. Application seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted within the time frame of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
3. Maintainability of the applications in light of the order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to an application filed under Section 31 of the IBC challenging the rejection of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. The applicant sought a declaration that the decision was against Section 30 of the Code and requested approval of the Resolution Plan dated 16.09.2019. The Tribunal considered the application but ultimately dismissed it, stating that the decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor had already been made, rendering the application not maintainable under the Code.

2. The second issue involves another application seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted within the CIRP timeframe. The applicant, the Suspended Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor, filed this application under Section 31 of the IBC. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant provisions of the Code, found that due to the order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, the application was not maintainable and therefore dismissed it.

3. The final issue addresses the maintainability of both applications in light of the order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal referred to a previous order putting the Corporate Debtor into liquidation and appointing a Liquidator. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applications were not maintainable under the existing provisions of the Code. As a result, both applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the applications seeking to challenge the rejection of the Resolution Plan and seeking approval of the Plan within the CIRP timeframe due to the Corporate Debtor's liquidation order, rendering the applications not maintainable under the IBC.