9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1193 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyLiquidation of the Corporate Debtor - no Resolution Plan submitted - CIR process - Resolution Profession, on the recommendation of the CoC, filed an Application for further extension of the time period of CIR Process on the ground that the proceedings under the I&B Code, 2016 were suspended between 23.10.2017 to 21.12.2017 by virtue of the orders of the Hon ble High Court of Madras and this Authority had extended the time period of CIR Process till 22.06.2018 - HELD THAT - It is stated by the Resolution Professional that the CoCs has unanimously rejected the revised offer submitted by the Resolution Applicant on 07.01.2019 with 100 per cent voting share. Since no Resolution Plan has been received by this Authority under Sub-Section (6) of Section 30 of the I&B Code, 2016, before the expiry of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process the Corporate Debtor has to be ordered for Liquidation. This Authority hereby orders for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor viz., M/s. Infinitas Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which shall be conducted in the manner as laid down in Chapter III of part II of the I&B Code, 2016.
Issues Involved:
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Detailed Analysis: 1. Background: The case involved the liquidation of a Corporate Debtor, M/s. Infinitas Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code, 2016). The process started with the admission of a petition by a Financial Creditor, Indian Bank, leading to the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 2. Resolution Process: The IRP managed the Corporate Debtor and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The CoCs decided to extend the CIRP period, invited Expression of Interest (EoI) for Resolution Plans, appointed valuers and forensic auditors, and received Resolution Plans from potential Resolution Applicants. 3. Revised Offers and CoC Meetings: After deliberations, revised offers were submitted by Resolution Applicants, but the CoCs found no significant changes in the plans. Extension requests for CIRP period were made due to court orders suspending proceedings, leading to multiple meetings and voting on Resolution Plans. 4. Rejection of Resolution Plans: Despite multiple attempts, the CoCs rejected all Resolution Plans due to concerns about creditor haircuts, low offers compared to previous settlements, financial statements, and questionable transactions, leading to the decision of liquidation. 5. Judicial Directions: The Resolution Professional was directed to convene meetings with Resolution Applicants for plan revisions. However, even after submitting revised plans, the CoCs unanimously rejected the offers, resulting in the liquidation order by the Authority under Section 33 of the I&B Code, 2016. 6. Liquidation Order: The Authority passed a detailed Liquidation Order appointing the Resolution Professional as the Company Liquidator, ceasing the moratorium, transferring powers to the Liquidator, and outlining procedures for the liquidation process, including fee entitlement, communication of the order, and compliance requirements. 7. Conclusion: The case highlighted the exhaustive process of attempting resolution through multiple meetings, plan revisions, and CoC deliberations before ultimately resorting to liquidation due to the failure to approve viable Resolution Plans within the stipulated time frame under the I&B Code, 2016.
|
