9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 523 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyLiquidation of Corporate Debtor - liquidation sought as no Resolution Plan was receive - Section 33(1) of the IBC 2016 - HELD THAT - On 02.02.2021 pronouncement of orders was deferred upon request of a prospective Resolution Applicant viz. Mantena Constructions Pvt Ltd, who had filed application expressing its interest in putting up a Resolution Plan and requesting certain details from the RP in furtherance thereof. Orders were passed in permitting the Applicant therein to access the details. The RP was also directed to provide the required information. However, on 23.03.2021 the Applicant (Mantena Constructions Pvt Ltd) submitted that upon verification of the information made available, it was no longer interested in submitting a Resolution Plan. Thereafter, orders in MA No. 227 of 2018 MA No. 350 of 2018 were reserved and are being passed today. The Corporate Debtor, Unity Infraprojects Limited, shall be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter-III of the Code - liquidator appointed - Liquidator shall endeavour to sell the Company as a going concern during the liquidation in terms of Regulation 32A of the Regulations - moratorium ceased to have effect.
Issues:
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor, Intervention by Employees, Sale of Business as Going Concern, Discharge of Employees, Approval of Resolution Plan, Liquidation Process, Role of Resolution Professional, Committee of Creditors Decision Making, Statutory Compliance, Legal Proceedings. Liquidation of Corporate Debtor: The Resolution Professional filed an application seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code). The Tribunal admitted the petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and later appointed a Resolution Professional. Despite efforts to secure a resolution plan, no viable plan was approved, leading to the approval of the resolution for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor by the Committee of Creditors in a subsequent meeting. Intervention by Employees: Employees of the Corporate Debtor filed an application seeking intervention and specific reliefs, including the sale of the business as a going concern during the liquidation process. However, the Tribunal advised the employees to bring in investors for the company, which did not materialize. The Tribunal found certain prayers inconsistent with the provisions of the Code and advised against their consideration. Approval of Resolution Plan: The Resolution Professional rejected multiple resolution plans submitted by a potential applicant, citing reasons such as untimely submissions and insignificant changes in the offers. The Tribunal directed the Resolution Professional to present the last submitted plan to the Committee of Creditors for formal consideration and decision within a specified timeframe. Liquidation Process and Statutory Compliance: The Tribunal reviewed the conduct of the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors in detail, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory requirements and the need for timely and appropriate decision-making during the liquidation process. The Tribunal issued specific directions regarding the liquidation process, appointment of a Liquidator, cessation of moratorium, and transfer of powers to the Liquidator. Legal Proceedings and Discharge of Employees: The Tribunal ordered the cessation of all legal proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, except those notified by the Central Government. It also directed the Liquidator to manage the affairs of the Corporate Debtor and discharge the officers, employees, and workmen unless the business continues during liquidation. The Liquidator was instructed to notify relevant authorities of the Tribunal's order. Role of Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors Decision Making: The Tribunal highlighted the responsibilities of the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors in evaluating resolution plans, conducting due diligence, and making informed decisions regarding the future of the Corporate Debtor. It emphasized the need for transparency, cooperation, and adherence to the Code's provisions throughout the insolvency process. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the application for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, appointed a Liquidator, and provided detailed directions for the liquidation process. The application seeking intervention by employees was disposed of, with certain prayers deemed inconsistent with the legal framework. The judgment underscored the importance of statutory compliance, proper decision-making, and cooperation among stakeholders in insolvency proceedings.
|
