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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more