|
Advanced Search Options
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 160 Records
-
2022 (6) TMI 104
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - maintainability of application in terms of Section 4 of the IBC, 2016 - threshold limit involved - HELD THAT:- Notification of MCA dated 24.3.2020 makes it unambiguously clear that the threshold limit to be considered for section 9 application will be Rs. 1 crore. This threshold limit will be applicable for application filed u/s. 7 or 9 on or after 24.3.3020 even if the debt is of date earlier than 24.03.2020 - Since the application under section 9 of the code has been filed on 09.09.2021, therefore the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore of debt will be applicable in the given facts.
In the present application the Operational Creditor demanded Rs. 82,13,604/- and the said amount doesn't come within the threshold limit. In fact, the date of the filing has to be seen and not the date of the default or the date of the demand notice, which is immaterial. The intent of legislation to fix the threshold limit was to save the Companies from being rotted to NCLT for initiation of CIRP proceedings, due to COIVD-19 effect. The said notification was always prospective in nature but having retrospective repercussion also. Hence, even if the amount was due prior to 24.03.2020 and the demand notice was send prior to that the petition u/s. 7 or 9 of the Code cannot be filed against the Corporate Debtor.
Application not maintainable and is dismissed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 103
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - maintainability of application in terms of Section 4 of the IBC, 2016 - threshold limit of amount involved - HELD THAT:- Notification of MCA dated 24.3.2020 makes it unambiguously clear that the threshold limit to be considered for section 9 application will be Rs. 1 crore. This threshold limit will be applicable for application filed u/s. 7 or 9 on or after 24.3.3020 even if the debt is of date earlier than 24.03.2020 - Since the application under section 9 has been filed on 17.08.2020, though the demand notice was send on 03.01.2020, therefore, the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore of debt will be applicable in the present facts.
The intent of legislation to fix the threshold limit was to save the Companies from being rotted to NCLT for initiation of CIRP proceedings, due to COIVD-19 effect. The said notification was always prospective in nature but having retrospective repercussion also. Hence, even if the amount was due prior to 24.03.2020 and the demand notice was send prior to that the petition u/s. 7 or 9 of the Code, it cannot be filed against the Corporate Debtor. Henceforth, for the above-mentioned reasons, the present Application cannot be admitted. Accordingly, the same being not maintainable stands dismissed with no order to costs.
-
2022 (6) TMI 102
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the Corporate Debtor had raised a dispute for the first time vide its email dated 09.05.2017 with respect to the products delivered to the Operational Creditor. Subsequently on several occasions i.e. 12.05.2017, 22.05.2017, 24.05.2017, 23.06.2017, 01.07.2017, 04.07.2017, 06.07.2017 and 25.07.2017 disputes were raised with respect to the quantity and quality of the fabric delivered to the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, it can be seen that there was clever dispute between the parties with respect to the quality and quantity of the material supplied by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor.
On perusal of contents of the emails dated 9.05.2017, 12.05.2017, 22.05.2017, 24.05.2017, 23.06.2017, 01.07.2017, 04.07.2017, 06.07.2017 and 25.07.2017 the 'dispute' has been raised by the Corporate Debtor 'problem in bulks, shortage in bulks' and the 'dispute' raised by the Corporate Debtor does not appears to be hypothetical or illusory. From the, averments in petition and reply thereto and all other documents placed on record, this Bench is of the view that there is a dispute, which requires further investigation.
There was "pre-existing dispute" between the parties; accordingly the present petition is not maintainable - Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 55
Appointment of independent director/Board of Directors - seeking to order injunction to Respondent No.2 to 7 to present management from exercising any powers with respect to Respondent Company - stay on the operation of the bank accounts of Respondent No.1 to prevent misuse/misappropriation of the funds - inspection of books and papers of Respondent No.1 - conduct of forensic audit of books an accounts of Respondent No.1 for last three preceding financial years - conversion of remaining authorised share capital to equity shares in the name of respondents - HELD THAT:- The Learned Tribunal is already hearing the Appeal for its final disposal there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. However, with the consent of the parties the Appeal is being disposed off with indication that subsequent change in the share if any of the either parties will be subject to the result of the proceeding pending before the Tribunal.
This Tribunal expects that the Learned Tribunal considering nature of the dispute raised by the Appellant may take steps for disposal of the Company Petition expeditiously - Appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (6) TMI 54
Jurisdiction - Power of NCLT to recall its order - right to file the reply - whether the Adjudicating Authority has the power to recall its order of closing of right to file the Reply? - HELD THAT:- There is a difference between recalling of an order and review on merits of the issue decided by the Adjudicating Authority. No doubt that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to review its order after deciding a substantial issue but it has the jurisdiction to recall the order of the kind in dispute i.e. where the right to Reply was closed by an order on the ground that the opportunities granted were not availed.
The case is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the application on merits and decide the same in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2022 (6) TMI 53
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of interest - principal amount is paid - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Whether the CIRP can be initiated / triggered solely on the basis of the un-paid amount of interest when the entire principal amount of debt has been discharged by the Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- The interest is not included in the term “debt” per se. Rather, the “interest” can be claimed as “financial debt” only if such debt exists.
The “interest” component alone cannot be claimed or pursued, in absence of the debt, to trigger a CIR process against the corporate Debtor. Further, the application pursued for realization of the interest amount alone is against the intent of the IBC, 2016.
It is concluded that the CIRP against a Corporate Debtor cannot be initiated/triggered solely on the basis of the un-paid amount of interest where the entire principal amount has already been discharged by the Corporate Debtor.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 52
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repyament of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Privity of contract - whether the insolvency proceedings under the code can be initiated against the sole proprietorship firm? - HELD THAT:- The Proprietorship firms are not included within the ambit of the code. Therefore, in case the Inter Corporate Loan was issued in the name of the sole proprietorship, and that not being a legal entity cannot sue or be sued and cannot be considered as the corporate person. That the purported Corporate debtor is not a Limited liability partnership firm is also borne out from the pleadings of the purported financial creditor. The petition was maintainable if there was a privity of contract between the Financial Creditor and the individual. However the said debt is not given to an individual but to a concern namely Bulbulitala cold storages, who has incidentally, not been named as a Corporate debtor.
The alleged transaction undertaken between the Petitioner and the Principal borrower will not fall under the definition of Section 3(7) of IBC, 2016.
Privity of contract - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the Financial Creditor has no privity of contract with the corporate debtor, and therefore no proceedings can be initiated against the corporate debtor and accordingly reject this petition.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 51
Seeking dissolution of the Company - Section 59 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Liquidator has not received any claims and the Corporate Person has neither secured creditor nor unsecured creditors as on date of liquidation. The Liquidator distributed the amounts to the shareholders of the Company and the details of amounts distributed to shareholders - It is noted that the Liquidator has submitted the preliminary report as required under the Regulation 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Voluntary Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017 to the Corporate Person.
It is noted that the Liquidator having completed the distribution closed the Bank Account with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Hyderabad on 12.01.2022 and the Liquidator has submitted the Final report dated 09.02.2022 of realisation and distribution to Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad and to IBBI - It is noted that the Corporate Person have been completely wound up and its assets completely liquidated.
It is directed that this Corporate Person through its Liquidator, voluntarily liquidated itself so as to get dissolved - application allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 50
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The default has occurred in repayment of the financial debt as on 13.10.2018 and no representation has been made by the Corporate Debtor.
It is satisfying that in the present petition financial debt is due and payable - The Petition is filed in the proforma prescribed under Rule 4 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Section 7 of the Code and is complete. A default has occurred, and debt has remained unpaid. Accordingly, the application is admitted and CIRP is ordered to be initiated against the CD.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2022 (6) TMI 49
Territorial Jurisdiction - Maintainability of petition before NCLT, Jaipur Bench, since as per Section 60(1) of IBC, 2016, the same should be presented before the NCLT Bench having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is located - HELD THAT:- This bench has no jurisdiction in the matter due to territorial prescription as per Section 60(1). Under the circumstances no further prosecution of this matter is possible at NCLT, Jaipur.
However, in case this bench directs the return of the petition for fresh filing before New Delhi bench where the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is located, it may cause inconvenience to the Petitioner. The other alternative is to transfer the case. It is seen that as per Rule 16 of NCLT Rules, the power to transfer a case lies with the Hon'ble President NCLT. Delay and inconvenience may be obviated if the Hon'ble President accords approval to transfer the case to NCLT, New Delhi.
Application allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 48
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Time Limitation - Whether the documentary evidence furnished with application shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and has not yet been paid by the Corporate Debtor?
HELD THAT:- This application being under section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 the Operational Creditor shall establish that an operational debt is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor, exceeding Rs. 1 lac besides default, in payment of the same by the Corporate Debtor. A perusal of the invoices, delivery challans and ledger accounts of the Corporate Debtor clearly disclose that the applicant had supplied garments to the Corporate Debtor for the value mentioned therein. The plea of the Corporate Debtor that it had not received supplies from the Operational Creditor cannot be accepted for the reason that the invoices contained TIN number of the Corporate Debtor besides GST has been paid on the goods supplied - there exists an operational debt of a sum of Rs. 24,75,740/- due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor and the same was defaulted by the Corporate Debtor.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The acknowledgement of debt is within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act.
The applicant had established operational debt due and payable by the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in repayment of the same. Therefore, it is a fit case to put the Corporate Debtor under CIRP - petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2022 (6) TMI 47
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - section 33(2) of IBC read with sub-section (1) thereof - HELD THAT:- This is a case where no Resolution Plan was received and the 180 days CIRP period will be expiring on 16/05/2022. Therefore, there is no alternative but to order liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
Application allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 13
Initiation of CIRP - period of limitation - whether the issuance of Recovery Certificate would not trigger the right to sue. - time limitation - HELD THAT:- From the scheme of the IBC, it could be seen that where any Corporate Debtor commits a default, a financial creditor, an operational creditor or the Corporate Debtor itself is entitled to initiate CIRP in respect of such Corporate Debtor in the manner as provided under the said Chapter. The default has been defined to mean non-payment of debt. The debt has been defined to mean a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person and includes a financial debt and operational debt. A claim means a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, disputed, etc. It is more than settled that the trigger point to initiate CIRP is when a default takes place. A default would take place when a debt in respect of a claim is due and not paid. A claim would include a right to payment whether or not such a right is reduced to judgment.
It is a settled principle of law that the provisions of a statue ought to be interpreted in such a manner which would advance the object and purpose of the enactment.
Whether a person, who holds a Recovery Certificate would be a financial creditor within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 5 of the IBC? - HELD THAT:- A person to be entitled to be a “financial creditor” has to be owed a financial debt and would also include a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred to. Therefore, the only question that would be required to be considered is, as to whether a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate would be included within the meaning of the term “financial debt” as defined under clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC - It is thus clear that it is a settled position of law that when the word “include” is used in interpretation clauses, the effect would be to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute. Such interpretation clause is to be so used that those words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things, as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. In such a situation, there would be no warrant or justification in giving the restricted meaning to the provision.
The trigger point for initiation of CIRP is default of claim. “Default” is nonpayment of debt by the debtor or the Corporate Debtor, which has become due and payable, as the case may be, a “debt” is a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person, and a “claim” means a right to payment, whether such a right is reduced to judgment or not. It could thus be seen that unless there is a “claim”, which may or may not be reduced to any judgment, there would be no “debt” and consequently no “default” on nonpayment of such a “debt”. When the “claim” itself means a right to payment, whether such a right is reduced to a judgment or not, we find that if the contention of the respondents, that merely on a “claim” being fructified in a decree, the same would be outside the ambit of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC, is accepted, then it would be inconsistent with the plain language used in the IBC - the definition is inclusive and not exhaustive. Taking into consideration the object and purpose of the IBC, the legislature could never have intended to keep a debt, which is crystallized in the form of a decree, outside the ambit of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC.
Having done the exercise of considering the relevant provisions of the IBC afresh and come to a conclusion that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate would be a “financial debt” within the meaning of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC and a holder of the 54 Recovery Certificate would be a “financial creditor” within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 5 of the IBC - It is more than well settled that when the language of a statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, it is not permissible for the Court to add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast legislation.
From the plain and simple interpretation of the words used in subsection (22A) of Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Act, it would be amply clear that the Legislature provided that for the purposes of winding-up proceedings against a Company, etc., a Recovery Certificate issued by the Presiding Officer under subsection (22) of Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Act shall be deemed to be a decree or order of the Court. It is thus clear that once a Recovery Certificate is issued by the Presiding Officer under subsection (22) of Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Act, in view of subsection (22A) of Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Act it will be deemed to be a decree or order of the Court for the purposes of initiation of winding-up proceedings of a Company, etc. However, there is nothing in subsection (22A) of Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Act to imply that the Legislature intended to restrict the use of the Recovery Certificate limited for the purpose of winding-up proceedings.
A liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate would be a “financial debt” within the meaning of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC. Consequently, the holder of the Recovery Certificate would be a financial creditor within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 5 of the IBC. As such, the holder of such certificate would be entitled to initiate CIRP, if initiated within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate. 85 - the application under Section 7 of the IBC was within limitation and the learned NCLAT has erred in holding that it is barred by limitation.
The appeal is allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 12
CIRP - Validity of order of NCLT admitting the application, bearing the signature of one member only -Pronouncement of the order in accordance with Rule 151 and 152 of the NCLT Rules or not - HELD THAT:- The order clearly mentions that the order was pronounced under Rule 151 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 with consent of the other Member. There are no error in the pronouncement of order by one Member with consent of the other Member of the Bench under Rule 151 of the NCLT Rules.
Rule 152(4) on which reliance is placed is with regard to the matter where the order cannot be signed by reason of death, retirement or resignation or for any other reason by any one of the Members of the Bench who heard the case. Present is not the case where order cannot be signed by reason of death, retirement or resignation or for any other reason. Present is the case where the Technical Member was to be available after a couple of weeks to sign the order and with his consent the order was pronounced. There is no occasion for application of Rule 152(4).
The Appeal is dismissed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 11
Quantification of CIRP cost - Seeking a declaration that monthly fees payable to the Applicant under the Service Agreement for the relevant period shall form part of the CIRP costs in terms of the IBC - HELD THAT:- The Resolution Plan contemplated that if the CIRP cost exceeds the current estimates, the excess amount as per actuals would be borne by the Successful Resolution Applicant subject to a maximum of Rs.475 Crores. Thus, payment of the CIRP costs which was not included in the estimates under the Resolution Plan was also contemplated upto Rs. 475 Crores. Unfortunately, at the time of hearing of the Appeal, the aforesaid clauses (g) and (h) of the Resolution Plan were not brought into the notice of this Tribunal.
This Tribunal has clearly laid down that findings on questions of fact, how-so-ever erroneous cannot be allowed to be questioned. However, mistake which have due to oversight, inadvertence or human error can be corrected. Further it was held that it would be open to correct the conclusion if the same is not compatible with the finding recorded on the issues raised.
In exercise of jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, present is a fit case where judgment dated 06.05.2022 needs correction and clarification - impugned order is set aside - application allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 10
CIRP - Company/ corporate debtor under liquidation - non-receipt of limited notice or receipt of defective limited notice - whether the Order of the Adjudicating Authority has to be set aside on the ground that limited Notice under Section 95(1) of the Code was not issued to the Personal Guarantor seeking his appearance? - whether the Demand Notice issued by the Respondent Bank is defective? - HELD THAT:- It is the main case of the Appellant that the limited Notice contemplated under Section 95(1) of the Code was never served upon them. The material on record shows that the Personal Guarantor was represented on that date and therefore it cannot be said that the Appellant was not aware of the proceedings. The object behind the issuance of the limited Notice to the Personal Guarantor is to appear before the Adjudicating Authority following the Principle of Natural Justice. The documentary evidence on record establishes that the Demand Notice dated 06/10/2021 was received by the Appellant on 12/10/2021. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that this Demand Notice, though received by them was sans the annexures and therefore is a defective one. The same was communicated to the Respondent Bank on 24/10/2021 and the Bank had once again sent another copy on 24/11/2021.
The ratio laid down by this Tribunal in Chandresh Jajoo Vs. Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [2022 (5) TMI 1364 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI], is squarely applicable to the facts of this case wherein it is observed that ‘there was no reason to direct for issuance of any limited Notice to the Appellant as he was aware of the proceedings’. Morever the stage of admission of the Application has not yet come and at that stage, the Appellant can raise all the objections before the Adjudicating Authority opposing the admission of the said Application. Needless to add, the Adjudicating Authority will consider the pleas and pass Orders under Section 100 in accordance with law.
Last contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that Section 95 Application cannot be adjudicated by Bench No. III of the NCLT since the Liquidation Proceedings of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ was Pending before Bench No. VI of the NCLT. It is not understood as to why the Appellant has not brought the same to the Notice of the Bench or exercise his right by filing an Application before the Principal Bench under Rule 16 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 9
Jurisdiction - Power of Liquidator to act beyond the period of liquidation - it is claimed that date of initiation of the Liquidation proceedings, is 10.01.2020 and the initial period of one year and the extended period of one year expired on 10.01.2022, and this application filed on 22.03.2022 is ultra vires to IBC 2016 - HELD THAT:- A conjoint reading of Section 424(3) of Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 57 of NCLT Rules, 2016, it is clear that for the purpose of enforcement of an order of this Tribunal, the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and the order to be enforced as a deemed decree, for which an application is to be filed under Rule 56 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - Section 67 deals with the proceedings under Section 66, Rule 11 deals with Inherent powers of this Tribunal to make orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of this Tribunal and Rule 51 deals with the Power of the Tribunal to regulate the procedure.
Nowhere in the Sections or Rules, there is any provision to order execution of the proceedings. In this case, the discretionary power cannot be used since this is a case for execution of the decree which can be done by this Tribunal under Rule 57 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, if application to that effect is filed and that too after hearing the affected parties. Since this application has been filed under Section 60(5) and 67 of IBC, the second relief for enforcement and execution of the order/decree passed by this Tribunal in IA/IBC/27/KOB/2021 vide order dated 13.07.2021 also cannot be granted.
Application dismissed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 8
Appointment of Insolvency Professional - Section 21(6A)(b) of the IBC, 2016 read with Regulation 16A(1) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the records that the Applicant/Liquidator has complied with all the procedures prescribed under the law. The Form AB is verified the Written Consent produced by Shri Rajendran P.R. to act as the Authorized Representative of the class of creditors.
Since this Tribunal is satisfied that Shri Rajendran P.R. can be appointed as the Authorized Representative of the class of creditors, Mr. Rajendran P.R., Insolvency Professional having Registration Number IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01748/2019-2020/12717 residing at Padinjareparippil, Kulayettikkara P.O., Kanjiramattom, Ernakulam, Kerala-682 317, is appointed as the Authorized Representative for the Class of Creditors in the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Application allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 7
Rejection of claim of workmen/employees by the liquidator - veracity of the documents produced also not verified before rejection of such claim - Section 42 of IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is true that the Liquidator has rejected the claims of the appellants within hours of receipt of the claims, without verifying the veracity of the documents produced - As per Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Liquidator was required to process the claims submitted in Form 'E' by the Appellant as claim made by the "Operational Creditor". Regulation 20 provides for the processing of claims by other stakeholders and the Appellant were required to prove its claim inter alia on the basis of relevant documents which adequately establish their claim. Under Regulation 23, the Liquidator has the power and duty to call for such other evidence or clarification as he deems fit from a claimant for substantiating the whole or part of its claim.
The Liquidator has avoided performing the duty as was required to be performed under the 'I & B Code' and the Regulations. The submission of the Learned counsel for the appellants is accepted that the Liquidator was required to look into the documents and come to the 'best estimate' and give the benefit to the Appellants - Moreover, on verification of the documents such as Form 16, 26AS issued by the Income Tax Department as also the Appointment Order and the salary particulars produced by the Appellants, it is evident that they were working under the Corporate Debtor from various years from 2014 onwards and their income tax TDS has been deducted by the Corporate Debtor.
The Liquidator is directed to take steps to process the claims of the Appellants and arrive at best estimate of the amount of claim made by the Appellants and give the necessary benefit to the Appellant in the form of a speaking order considering all the documents produced and the averments made in these Appeals - appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (6) TMI 6
Seeking direction to Registrar, NCLT Kochi to take necessary steps in relation with the pending appeals filed under Section 42 of the Code which are served upon the Liquidator but not yet listed before this Bench - seeking commencement of distribution of assets/proceeds of sale as per Section 53 read with Regulation 42 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT:- As far as the 1st prayer of the Applicant to direct the Registry of this Tribunal to take necessary steps in relation to the pending appeals filed under Section 42 of the Code which is served upon the Liquidator but not yet listed before this Bench is concerned on verification of the records of this Registry, it is seen that the appeals stated to have been filed by the workmen have been returned to them being defective and that they have not re-presented them till date. Hence, there are no appeals pending consideration by this Tribunal.
As regards the 2nd prayer to direct/permit commencement of distribution of assets/proceeds of sale as per Section 53 read with Regulation 42 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 is concerned, it is seen that the Hon'ble High Court while dismissing the OP(C) 484/2020 precluded the Applicant from the disbursement of any amount to any of the creditors of the Corporate Debtor till the time the pending appeals filed under Section 42 by the workmen/employees before this Tribunal were disposed of. Since all the appeals filed by the workmen/employees were dismissed by this Tribunal for the reasons stated therein, there is no bar in granting the prayer of the Applicant for commencement of distribution of assets/proceeds of sale as per Section 53 of IBC, 2016 read with Regulation 42 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.
The Applicant/Liquidator is permitted to proceed with the distribution of assets/proceeds of sale to the stakeholders on receipt of this order - application disposed off.
....
|
