2022 (1) TMI 514 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - Despite all possible steps as required under the Code taken during the CJRP, the CoC did not receive any viable resolution plan/proposal for revival of the Company. The CoC in its wisdom has resolved in favour of the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. This Authority has no reason before it to take a contrary view in terms of Section 33 of the Code. Therefore, it has no option than to pass an order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor to sale as going concern in the manner laid down in Chapter III of the Code. The Corporate Debtor, Belgium Aluminum Glass Industries Private Limited, shall be liquidated - Application allowed.

Issues Involved:
Application for Liquidation Process under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Corporate Debtor Belgium Aluminum & Glass Industries Private Limited.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and CIRP Process:
The Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 33 of the Code for initiating Liquidation Process against the Corporate Debtor after the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated. The Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted. Despite efforts to invite resolution plans, only two expressions of interest were received, and no viable resolution plan was submitted within the stipulated timeline.

2. CoC Meetings and Resolutions:
In subsequent CoC meetings, resolutions were proposed for the extension of the CIRP period and later for liquidation when the extension was not approved. The CoC eventually approved the resolution for liquidation with 100% voting shares, leading to the recommendation for liquidation under Section 33 of the IBC 2016. The CoC also resolved to appoint a Liquidator for the Corporate Debtor.

3. Legal Provisions and Regulations:
The judgment highlighted Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which outlines the initiation of liquidation in cases where a viable resolution plan is not received or is rejected. The judgment also referenced Regulation 39C, which deals with the assessment of sale as a going concern and the process to be followed in case of liquidation.

4. Appointment of Liquidator:
The CoC decided not to consider the Resolution Professional as the Liquidator, leading to the appointment of a new Liquidator for the Corporate Debtor. The judgment appointed Mr. Kamal Kishor Gurnani as the Liquidator, outlining his responsibilities and entitlements during the liquidation process.

5. Order for Liquidation:
Based on the CoC's decision and in accordance with the provisions of the Code, the Tribunal passed an order for the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, directing the Liquidator to proceed with the sale of the Company as a going concern. The order included specific directions regarding the cessation of moratorium, legal proceedings, transfer of powers to the Liquidator, and compliance with relevant sections of the Code and regulations.

6. Conclusion and Compliance:
The judgment concluded that despite the efforts made during the CIRP, the CoC's decision in favor of liquidation was justified. The Tribunal upheld the CoC's resolution and ordered the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, emphasizing compliance with the Code's provisions and regulations.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key aspects and legal implications of the judgment delivered by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench regarding the application for liquidation against the Corporate Debtor.

← Previous Next →