9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 891 - Tri - IBCLiquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33(2) of the IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT - Since, in the 5th CoC meeting held on 13.01.2020, the Committee of Creditors has deliberated about the current affairs of the Corporate Debtor and also on the future course of action to be taken and as such the CoC was unwilling to consider the Resolution Plan and extend the time limit for completion of the CIRP and based on its commercial wisdom has decided to liquidate the Corporate Debtor and thus by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 33 of IBC, 2016 and in the absence of any opposition to the Application from the Promoters/Directors of the Corporate Debtor and also guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mr. K. Sasidharan -Vs- Indian Overseas Bank 2019 (2) TMI 1043 - SUPREME COURT this Tribunal orders for the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. The Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor is directed to carryout the liquidation process subject to the directions issued - Liquidator shall strictly act in accordance with the provisions of IBC, 2016 and the attendant Rules and regulations including Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017 as amended upto date enjoined upon him. Application disposed off.
Issues involved:
Application for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Section 33(2) of IBC, 2016. Analysis: 1. The Resolution Professional filed an application seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section 33(2) of the IBC, 2016. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated, and the Resolution Professional was appointed as IRP. The CoC was constituted with the Financial Creditor as the sole member, and meetings were held to discuss various aspects of the resolution process. 2. The Resolution Professional appointed registered valuers to determine the fair value and liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor's assets. The valuation reports were submitted, and it was confirmed that the Corporate Debtor had not engaged in any transactions prohibited by the IBC. Expression of Interest was published, and claims from creditors were duly admitted. 3. The erstwhile Director of the Corporate Debtor expressed interest in taking over the company but failed to submit a formal Expression of Interest. Despite multiple reminders, no concrete plan was submitted. The CoC meetings deliberated on the lack of response and decided to proceed with liquidation. 4. The CoC meetings discussed extending the CIRP period or approving liquidation based on the absence of a formal Resolution Plan. Eventually, the decision was made to liquidate the Corporate Debtor considering commercial viability and legal provisions under Section 33 of the IBC, 2016. 5. The CoC passed a resolution to appoint the Resolution Professional as the Liquidator, and the terms of the liquidation process were outlined. The Liquidator was directed to comply with IBC provisions, investigate financial affairs, issue public announcements, and communicate with regulatory authorities. The order of Moratorium was lifted, and the Liquidator was instructed to proceed with the liquidation process as per IBC regulations. 6. The Liquidator was mandated to investigate financial affairs, submit reports within specified timelines, and communicate the order to relevant stakeholders. The application for liquidation was disposed of with the outlined terms, marking the initiation of the liquidation process for the Corporate Debtor. This detailed analysis encapsulates the key aspects and decisions outlined in the judgment regarding the application for the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under the IBC, 2016.
|
