2019 (10) TMI 892 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Liquidation Order - section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - The order of liquidation has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority in view of the application u/s 33 (1)(a) filed by the Resolution Professional on the instruction of Resolution Professional more than 180 days have been passed. In absence of any infirmity, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of liquidation dated 5th December, 2018. In the absence of any application u/s 60 filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority has not decided such issue. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of liquidation under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- Transfer of immovable properties to Corporate Debtor
- Rights of Corporate Debtor over assets
- Liquidation order validity
- Appellant's claim and recourse under I&B Code
- Adjudicating Authority's decision on specific issue

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against the order of liquidation passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant contended that the immovable properties in question, which were to be transferred to the Corporate Debtor, could not be considered as assets of the Corporate Debtor due to non-encashment of the cheque by the Corporate Debtor. The Respondents, representing the Resolution Professional/Liquidator, argued that the records of the Corporate Debtor indicated the immovable properties as belonging to the Corporate Debtor. They relied on Section 36(iii)(a) to assert that assets over which the Corporate Debtor has rights, including evidence from the balance sheet or registered records, should be considered. It was further highlighted that the immovable properties were transferred via Registered Sale Deeds, including Construction Agreements.

The Adjudicating Authority had passed the order of liquidation based on the application filed by the Resolution Professional, as more than 180 days had elapsed. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the liquidation order, citing no apparent infirmity. The Appellant was advised to approach the Liquidation Forum as per the provisions of the I&B Code for their claim, and the Liquidator was directed to communicate their stance to the Appellant. It was clarified that since no application under Section 60 was filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, the specific issue remained undecided, and the Tribunal refrained from making a decision on it within the appeal.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned observations, without any costs imposed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Appellant to pursue their claim through the appropriate channels under the I&B Code, while also highlighting the importance of complying with the procedural requirements before seeking adjudication on specific issues.