Skip to main content

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017

Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22

Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai

Corum: R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical)

Background

Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern.

Order

Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'.

NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilities should be able to run business without any disruption. 

There are two going concern sales defined under Regulation 32 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The first one pertains to Sale of "Corporate Debtor as a going concern" under Regulation 32(e) and sale of "Business of Corporate Debtor as a going concern" under Regulation 32(f).

In the sale of "Corporate Debtor as a going concern" under Regulation 32(e) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 the Corporate Debtor will not be dissolved. In this part of sale, the entire business, assets and liabilities, including all contracts, licenses, concessions, agreements, benefits, privileges, rights or interests of the Corporate Debtor will be transferred to the acquirer. The existing shares of the Corporate Debtor will not be transferred and shall be extinguished.

In the sale of "Business of Corporate Debtor as a going concern" under Regulation 32(f) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the entire business(s) along with assets and liabilities, including intangibles, will be transferred as a going concern to the acquirer, without transfer of the Corporate Debtor, and therefore, the Corporate Debtor will be dissolved. The existing shares will be extinguished. The remaining assets, other than those sold as part of business will be sold and the proceeds thereof will be used to meet the claims under Section 53 of IBC, 2016 

Sale of a Company as a 'Going Concern' means sale of both assets and liabilities, if it is stated on 'as is where is basis'. The Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of M/s. Visisth Services Ltd. Vs. Mr. S. V. Ramani, Liquidator of United Chloro-Paraffins Pvt. Ltd. Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 896 of 2020 held that as per Regulation 32A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Sale as a 'Going Concern' means sale of assets as well as liabilities and not assets sans liabilities. 

NCLT concluded that Sale of a Company as a 'Going Concern' means sale of both assets and liabilities, if it is stated on 'as is where is basis'.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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