9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he was unable to demonstrate any material irregularity of substance to substantiate his argument. Admittedly, statutory Corporate Insolvency Resolution Period of 180 days further extended by 90 days computed from the date of appointment of Interim Resolution Professional has elapsed and there is no legal scope for extension of the period. Any irregularity or illegality right from order of admission till passing of the order of liquidation, if any, should have been challenged before the competent forum at the appropriate stage. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is time bound and the timelines set out by I B Code, Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder have to be adhered to scrupulously. There is no ground for interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uidation of the Corporate Debtor based on approval of Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred to as COC ) was allowed and the Corporate Debtor was ordered to be liquidated. The impugned order has been assailed on a variety of grounds including alleged irregularity in appointment of Resolution Professional, collusion between the Resolution Professional and the COC, bias and fraud. 2. Heard learned counsel for Appellant at the pre-admission stage and waded through the record. It appears that on an application filed under Section 9 of I B Code by M/s Elecon Engineering Company Ltd. (Operational Creditor) the Adjudicating Authority initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by passing order of admission dated 4th D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. Admittedly, statutory Corporate Insolvency Resolution Period of 180 days further extended by 90 days computed from the date of appointment of Interim Resolution Professional has elapsed and there is no legal scope for extension of the period. Any irregularity or illegality right from order of admission till passing of the order of liquidation, if any, should have been challenged before the competent forum at the appropriate stage. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is time bound and the timelines set out by I B Code, Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder have to be adhered to scrupulously. It is not open to the Promoter/ Director/ Shareholder of Corporate Debtor to assail the very edifice of the process or subsequent eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Financial Creditors having expertise in the relevant field is not amenable to judicial scrutiny. The dictum of law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court is loud and clear on the aforesaid aspect. We may profitably refer to their lordship s observations in Civil Appeal No. 10673 of 2018 titled K. Shashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. decided on 5th February, 2019. 33. As aforesaid, upon receipt of a rejected resolution plan the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is not expected to do anything more; but is obligated to initiate liquidation process under Section 33(1) of the I B Code. The legislature has not endowed the adjudicating authority (NCLT) with the jurisdiction or authority to analyse or evaluat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsciously, has not provided any ground to challenge the commercial wisdom of the individual financial creditors or their collective decision before the adjudicating authority. That is made nonjusticiable. 5. In view of the settled proposition of law and for the reasons recorded in the foregoing paras, we find no ground for interference with the impugned order of liquidation. However, the direction enumerated in clause (g) of para 11 of the impugned order is repugnant to law and virtually conflicts with the recommendation of CoC for liquidation of Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The Adjudicating Authority landed in error in directing that the liquidation order shall be deemed as a notice of discharge to the officers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
