9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 766 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyLiquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016 - HELD THAT - It would appear 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 99.78% voting share in favour of the liquidation of the Company. The Applicant RP has not given his consent to act as Liquidator. The CoC members recommends Ms. Vaishali Arun Patrikar to act as Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. 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. Corporate Debtor is ordered to be liquidated - application allowed.
Issues:
1. Application for initiating Liquidation Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor. Analysis: The Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate the Liquidation Process against the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated earlier, and various meetings of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) were held to appoint Resolution Professionals. Despite efforts to solicit viable resolution plans, only one Expression of Interest (EOI) was received, which did not meet the eligibility criteria. Subsequent meetings of the CoC led to the rejection of the final resolution plan submitted by a prospective resolution applicant (PRA), resulting in the CoC's decision to proceed with liquidation. The CoC, with a significant majority of voting shares, approved the resolution for liquidation, leading to the appointment of a Liquidator as per the provisions of the Code. The Resolution Professional did not consent to act as the Liquidator, and Ms. Vaishali Arun Patrikar was recommended by the CoC to assume the role. The Tribunal, in line with Section 33(1)(a) of the Code, acknowledged the CoC's decision and ordered the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor as per the statutory framework outlined in Chapter III of the Code. The Tribunal emphasized that it does not possess the authority to challenge the commercial decisions of the CoC regarding the rejection of resolution plans. Despite the RP's efforts during the CIRP, the absence of a viable resolution plan necessitated the CoC's resolution for liquidation, which was supported by a significant majority of voting shares. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor with specified directions regarding the appointment of the Liquidator, cessation of moratorium, transfer of powers to the Liquidator, and compliance with relevant regulations and procedures outlined in the Code. In conclusion, the Tribunal approved the application for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, appointing Ms. Vaishali Arun Patrikar as the Liquidator and issuing directives to facilitate the liquidation process in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
