9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enses. Unless the applicant makes good the payment it could not be allowed to exit from the Liquidation Process. The expenses incurred thereby could not be directed to be part of the CIRP expenses. It is contended by the applicant that since one of the two vessels in danger held as security by applicant, it could only bear 50% of the expenses involved in averting the collision. The expenses incurred for securing TAG 22 for preventing the collision could not form a part of the liquidation expenses. More so, when the applicant wishes to exit the liquidation process. Thus, the contention of the applicant to avoid payment is flawed. Even otherwise by the action of the liquidator, the charge of the applicant was protected. The other members o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 9 of the Code directing initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor. No Resolution Plan was received within 180 days of the CIRP i.e. till 22.09.2019. An application (M.A. No. 2716 of 2019) seeking Liquidation under Section 33 of the Code made to this Tribunal was allowed by an order dated 26.09.2019. The respondent was appointed as the Liquidator. 3. The applicant on 09.10.2019 issued a notice to the respondent indicating its willingness to exit the liquidation process and redeem the mortgaged assets (i.e. two offshore supply vessels viz. m.v. Tag 21 and m.v. Tag 22) held exclusively by the applicant. It was intimated to the respondent about the willingness of the applicant to keep th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant that as per the investigation made by the respondent, there was a drift of Tag 22 towards Tag 6 and hence all the expenses for securing TAG 21 were to be borne by the applicant. Later, they received an invoice of Rs.12,00,000/- dated 09.10.2019 from the respondent for the expenses incurred to shift the vessel (M.V. TAG 21) to its actual location mandated for anchoring. The applicant issued an e-mail dated 31.10.2019 to the respondent to ascertain the break-up of the expenses incurred along with other requisite documents required for any vessel movement in Port s anchorage along with the investigation report. But the e-mail elicited no response. 6. The applicant submitted that it either in law or in fact is not liable to keep th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il dated 04.10.2019 had agreed to reimburse 50% of the total fees. It is contended by the respondent that these expenses would not form part of the CIRP expenses. Unless the applicant makes good the payment it could not be allowed to exit from the Liquidation Process. The expenses incurred thereby could not be directed to be part of the CIRP expenses. It is contended by the applicant that since one of the two vessels in danger held as security by applicant, it could only bear 50% of the expenses involved in averting the collision. 9. The expenses incurred for securing TAG 22 for preventing the collision could not form a part of the liquidation expenses. More so, when the applicant wishes to exit the liquidation process. Thus, the content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
