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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more