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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more