Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 908 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAILiquidation of Corporate Debtor - section 33 of IBC - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that there was no Resolution Plan which was approved by the CoC, prior to the expiry of the CIRP Period and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority passed the Liquidation Order as mandated under Section 33 (2) of the Code. Having regard to the fact that the CIRP period of 270 days was over and the CoC had voted in favour of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor Company with a 100 % majority, there are no substantial reasons in the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that their Plan ought to have been considered. The material on record establishes that Section 33 (1) (a) (i) and Section 33 (2) of the Code have been satisfied, IBC is a time bound process and the commercial wisdom of the CoC is to be given paramount importance for approval/rejection of a Resolution Plan. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of Judgments namely, KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI & ANR. VERSUS KOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. & ANR. [2021 (3) TMI 496 - SUPREME COURT], K. SASHIDHAR VERSUS INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 1043 - SUPREME COURT] has laid down that the Judicial review of the Tribunals is limited in terms of impeding the commercial wisdom of the CoC except when a Plan is not in adherence to Section 30 (2) of the Code. In the instant Case, there is no Resolution Plan in the offing, and the CoC has approved the Liquidation with a 100 % Voting as mandated under Section 33 of the Code, and there being no possibility of sale of the Corporate Debtor as ‘a Going Concern’, there are no substantial grounds to interfere with the well-considered Order of the Adjudicating Authority and hence, this Company Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
|