9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1281 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyAppointment of Liquidator - IRP not submitted the consent - COC also not constituted - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the provision shows that in terms of Section 34 (1) whenever a Liquidation order is passed under Section 33 of IBC, then the Resolution Professional appointed for the CIRP shall act as the liquidator for the purposes of liquidation unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 34 of IBC 2016. His appointment is subject to condition that the Resolution Professional is required to submit a written consent for his appointment as Liquidator. Here in the case in hand, the IRP has not submitted the consent even in this matter no CoC was constituted and this fact was considered while passing the order of liquidation on 25th January, 2022 and the matter was listed to appoint the Liquidator on 31.01.2022, but the erstwhile IRP declined to act as Liquidator - As it is seen that neither the CoC was constituted nor there is other claimant, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is deemed proper to exercise the powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules - application disposed off.
Issues: Appointment of Liquidator under Section 34 of IBC, 2016
Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the appointment of a Liquidator under Section 34 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The provision states that when a Liquidation order is passed under Section 33 of the IBC, the Resolution Professional appointed for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) shall act as the Liquidator unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 34. The Resolution Professional must submit a written consent for the appointment as the Liquidator. In this case, the IRP declined to act as the Liquidator, and no Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted. The order of liquidation was passed, and the matter was listed to appoint a Liquidator. However, the erstwhile IRP declined the appointment. 2. Since neither the CoC was constituted nor any other claimant emerged, the Tribunal decided to exercise its powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules. By invoking Rule 11, Mr. Lekhraj Bajaj was appointed as the Liquidator. His registration details were provided, and the office was instructed to hand over the order to the appointed Liquidator. The Tribunal disposed of the relevant application in light of the appointment of the new Liquidator. This judgment illustrates the application of Section 34 of the IBC, 2016 regarding the appointment of a Liquidator when the Resolution Professional declines the role. The Tribunal exercised its powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules to appoint a Liquidator in the absence of the CoC and any other claimant. The decision ensures the continuation of the liquidation process and the proper management of the corporate debtor's affairs under the provisions of the IBC.
|
