Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (12) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 888 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - liquidation mode - Held that:- Going by the rationale of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment recently rendered in the matter of Arcelormittal india pvt. Ltd. Vs. satish Kumar Gupta & Ors [2018 (10) TMI 312 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it has been held that in the interest of the Corporate Debtor and other stakeholders, every opportunity should be given for the Resolution of the Corporate Insolvency of a Corporate Debtor and that the liquidation should be a last resort. We find that the sole resolution plan filed by the Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor, namely, Mr. Mayank Patodia, Mr. Pawan Kumar Patodia & Mr. Prateek Patodia respectively had been considered and rejected by the COC in the meeting held on 08.08.2018 based on the resolution which has been fully extracted as above in paragraph supra. It is also evident that two persons who had initially shown interest by answering to the invitation of resolution plans, however, had subsequently withdrawn from submitting the resolution plans which would have enabled the COC to consider the same and come to a conclusion. As against the claim made by the Creditors including the Financial Creditors, Operational Creditors whether secured or not aggregating to a sum of ₹ 86,16,30,246 the fair value as well as the liquidation value as made available to this Tribunal based on its direction by the Resolution Professional does not even come to l/5th of the amount claimed, taking into consideration, both the fair value and as well as the liquidation value which falls well below the total claims. The resolution of the CoC made on 08.08.2018 to go in for liquidation mode after rejecting the sole Resolution Plan of the directors whose powers stood suspended had not been challenged by any of the parties before this Tribunal and in the circumstances, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 33(1) of IBC, 2016 and in view of the period of CIR process having expired, namely, 270 days period and since no resolution plan has been approved but on the other hand, the CoC has rejected the resolution plan under Section 31 of IBC, 2016 this Tribunal is constrained to pass an order requiring the Corporate Debtor, namely, Ashoka Multiyarn Mills Limited to be Liquidated in the manner as laid down under the provisions of IBC, 2016, more particularly given in Chapter III of IBC, 2016 and also in terms of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. Consequently, the Liquidator named will act as the liquidator for the purpose of carrying forward the liquidation mode and is directed to issue a public announcement as envisaged under the provisions of IBC, 2016
|