9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho have withdrawn the Scheme after submitting the same before the CoC, seeking direction to pay a sum of ₹ 2 Crore into the Liquidation account This Tribunal does not wish to traverse through the allegations made by the Applicant, since any orders passed will adversely affect the timelines set by this Tribunal - Application disposed off. - IA/527(CHE)/2021 in CP/514/IB/2017 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2021 - Sucharitha R., Member (J) And Sameer Kakar, Member (T) For the Appellant : Abitha Banu, Advocate For the Respondents : H. Karthik Seshadri, Advocate and S. Dhanapal, Liquidator ORDER Sucharitha R., Member (J) 1. IA/527(CHE)/2021 is an Application filed by the Liquidator of Servalakshmi Paper Limited under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. 3. It is averred in the Application that in terms of the Order passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT the Respondent has issued an Expression of Interest and pursuant to the same, two scheme proponents expressed their interest. Further it is averred in the Application that one more Resolution Applicant also proposed to file a Scheme, however the Respondent has not furnished the basic details like audited provisional accounts of the Corporate Debtor, latest valuation report of the assets, list of total assets so as to enable them to prepare and submit a scheme. It was submitted that due to the irresponsible act of the Respondent, the said prospective Resolution Applicant has filed an application seeking dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Hence, it was submitted that the Respondent deliberately did not proceed with the decision of the CoC and have acted for his own benefit and finally left the stakeholders at peril and now the Respondent has filed an Application seeking to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor as a 'going concern'. 6. It is averred in the Application that the entire assets of the Corporate Debtor are in the custody of the Respondent from June 2017 and the Respondent has been negligent in its duty and has failed to take care of the assets of the Corporate Debtor properly. Further, it was submitted that vital parts of the machinery of the Corporate Debtor are missing from the premises and that no steps have been taken by the Respondent to retri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - in the Scheme and to be paid by the Scheme proponents. Thus, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that it is false on the part of the Applicant to state that the Liquidator at the last moment increased the Liquidation cost on his own. Further, it was submitted that this Tribunal vide its order dated 13.03.2020 passed in CA/1266/2019 has already dealt in detail with the issue of placing the two Schemes before the Adjudicating Authority and has passed an order as to how to proceed with the Scheme and now at this point of time, the Applicant cannot be allowed to re-appreciate the issue which has already been decided by this Tribunal. Thus, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the present Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
