9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 872 - Tri - Companies LawLiquidation of the Company/Corporate Debtor - no viable resolution plan was provided to CoC - Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - Despite all possible steps as required under the Code taken during the CIRP, the CoC did not receive any viable resolution plan/proposal for revival of the Company. The CoC in its wisdom has resolved with 100% voting share in favour of the liquidation of the Company. This Authority has no reason before it to take a contrary view in terms of Section 33(1)(a) of the Code. Therefore, it has no option than to pass an order for liquidation of the Company in the manner laid down in Chapter III of the Code. The Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s. ISR Infra Private Limited shall be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter-III of the Code - Application allowed.
Issues: Application for liquidation under Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Detailed Analysis: 1. Admission of Petition and Appointment of Resolution Professional: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad, admitted the petition under Section 9 of the Code, initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Company. The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed, and subsequently, the IRP was appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor Company by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). 2. Extension of CIRP Period and Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown: Due to non-cooperation from the erstwhile Directors of the Corporate Debtor, there were delays in various processes, including publishing EoI and appointment of valuers. The CIRP period was extended by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority, but the COVID-19 lockdown further disrupted the proceedings, leading to delays in the resolution process. 3. Failure of Resolution Plan and Request for One Time Settlement (OTS): Despite efforts, no viable resolution plan was received by the stipulated date. The Corporate Debtor (CD) offered an OTS of ?8 crores, but failed to meet the commitments within the agreed timelines, leading to the CoC's decision to recommend liquidation under Section 33(1)(a) of the IBC, 2016. 4. Legal Precedent and Liquidation Order: Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that the CoC's decision with 100% voting share in favor of liquidation is binding. The Tribunal concluded that since no viable resolution plan was received, liquidation of the Company was the only option as per Section 33(1)(a) of the Code. 5. Order for Liquidation: The Tribunal ordered the liquidation of the Company as per the provisions of Chapter III of the Code. The present RP was appointed as the Liquidator, and various directions were issued regarding the liquidation process, including the cessation of moratorium, transfer of powers to the Liquidator, and cooperation from personnel connected with the Corporate Debtor. 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision to allow the application for liquidation was based on the lack of viable resolution plans and the CoC's unanimous decision in favor of liquidation. The detailed order outlined the steps to be taken for the liquidation process, emphasizing compliance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
