9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 427 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyDirection to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to constitute the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and call CoC's meeting - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble NCLAT took note of the fact that IRP to continue in the management of the Corporate Debtor and CIRP to be proceeded with. The order not to constitute the CoC was not extended after 24.08.2021 by the Hon'ble NCLAT and we have to take that order for our consideration. The IRP is directed to proceed with CIRP. Obviously, the IRP has to take further proceeding in CIRP as per sections 18 to 21 of the IBC, 2016. He has to constitute CoC and proceed further in CIRP. He cannot sit idly for years together controlling the affairs of the Corporate Debtor. In our considered opinion, IRP misread some orders of the Hon'ble NCLAT. The IRP are directed to proceed with the CIRP as per sections 18 to 21 of the IBC, 2016 and constitute CoC forthwith - application allowed.
Issues:
1. Constitution of Committee of Creditors (CoC) for Corporate Debtor in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 2. Rejection of application to constitute CoC based on previous orders by Hon'ble NCLAT and Adjudicating Authority. Analysis: 1. The Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor filed applications for direction to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to constitute the CoC and call for a meeting. The Suspended Management of the Corporate Debtor opposed this, citing a previous order by the Hon'ble NCLAT directing not to constitute the CoC for a week, which was extended by the Adjudicating Authority. The settlement between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor led to a series of legal challenges and orders, including setting aside the CIRP and subsequent appeals. 2. The Suspended Management argued against the constitution of CoC, stating that their interests would be prejudiced, and their pending appeal for setting aside the CIRP would become infructuous. The Financial Creditors contended that the IRP should proceed with the CIRP as per the IBC, 2016, and constitute the CoC. The IRP cited orders from the Adjudicating Authority and Hon'ble NCLAT as reasons for not constituting the CoC, fearing contempt of court. The Adjudicating Authority analyzed the series of orders and directed the IRP to proceed with the CIRP, constituting the CoC immediately, and rejected the application by the Suspended Management. 3. The Hon'ble NCLAT's orders were crucial in determining the course of action, with specific directives regarding the management of the Corporate Debtor and continuation of the CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the need for the IRP to adhere to the legal provisions of the IBC, 2016, and proceed with the resolution process promptly. The judgment clarified the obligations of the IRP and resolved the dispute regarding the constitution of the CoC, ensuring compliance with the legal framework. 4. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal history and current circumstances surrounding the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, balancing the interests of the Financial Creditors, Suspended Management, and adherence to the statutory requirements under the IBC, 2016. By interpreting the orders of the Hon'ble NCLAT and Adjudicating Authority, the decision aimed to facilitate the resolution process effectively while upholding the principles of insolvency law.
|
