Skip to main content

Power To Directly Proceed To Liquidation Without Taking Any Steps For Resolution Of The Corporate Debtor

IN THE MATTER OF Sunil S. Kakkad vs Atrium Infocom Private Limited, the question before the NCLAT in appeal was whether the Resolution Professional, with the approval of CoC with 66% vote share, directly proceed for the liquidation of Corporate Debtor Company without taking any steps for Resolution of the Corporate Debtor.

Appellant shareholder/promoter and erstwhile Director of the Corporate Debtor, „Atrium Infocomm Private Limited‟ has assailed the liquidation order passed under Section 33(2) of the I&B Code by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellants contends that liquidation is the last resort and it cannot and should not be passed without following due process of Resolution of the Corporate Debtor. It is alleged that impugned order is passed in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. It is further contended that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that the Committee of Creditors with 100% vote share took a decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor, without even issuing notice in Form-G for inviting Expression of Interest for submission of Resolution Plan. It is also pointed out that neither the Resolution Professional nor the CoC took any steps for Resolution of the Corporate Debtor.

Rejecting the appeal and referring to various sections of the Insolvency Code and the judgement of the Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, (2019) 12 SCC 150: (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 222: 2019 SCC O, the NCLAT held that it is clear that the decision of CoC to liquidate the Corporate Debtor without taking any steps for Resolution of the Corporate Debtor is covered under explanation to sub-clause (2) of Section 33 of the I&B Code and the same being decision on commercial wisdom, is non-justiciable given the law laid by Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in case of K. Sashidhar (supra). Thus, it is clear that there is no illegality in the decision of CoC in liquidating the Corporate Debtor before taking any steps for inviting Expression of Interest for submission of Resolution Plan.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more