TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for the Applicant during the hearing of this Petition that if there is any objection to the appointment of the proposed professional as Liquidator then the present Applicant, i.e., the RP, may be appointed as the Liquidator. However, instead of filing his written consent to be appointed as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor with this Adjudicating Authority, the RP chose to seek approval from the CoC that has no authority to appoint the Liquidator in the first place. Therefore, under the said circumstances, neither Mr. Pratim Bayal, whose appointment has been approved by the CoC by drawing authority from a source that is certainly not the Code, nor Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tibrewal, who has failed to submit his written consent under sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Code, can be appointed as the Liquidator of the corporate debtor in the present case. The Corporate Debtor is ordered to be liquidated in terms of section 33(2) of the Code read with sub-section (1) thereof - Application allowed. - IA No. 1027/KB/2020 In CP (IB) No.440/KB/2018 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2021 - Rajasekhar V.K., Member (Judicial) For the Applicant : Mr. Arik Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipt of EoI as 27.12.2019. Copies of said publications are annexed to the application and marked as Annexure -8 at pages 134 to 136. 8. No EoI was received by the RP in response to the publications made. Therefore, in the third CoC meeting held on 14.01.2020, the CoC decided to republish the Form G. Accordingly, on 17.01.2020, the RP republished the Form G fixing the last date for receipt of EoI as 16.02.2020. Copies of CoC meeting and said republication of Form G are annexed to the application and marked as Annexure-9 at pages 137 to 148 and Annexure-10 at pages 149-151, respectively. 9. In the fifth CoC meeting held on 24.02.2020, the RP informed the CoC that one EoI was received from Anmol Feeds Private Limited and that upon verification of the documents received from the prospective Resolution Applicant, it was declared eligible; the last date for submission of Resolution Plan was fixed on 27.03.2020. However, no Resolution Plan was received by the RP. In the sixth CoC meeting held on 04.04.2020, in view of the lockdown imposed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it was decided that the prospective Resolution Applicant would be given an extension of five days after the lockdown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed as the liquidator. 15. During the hearing of the present application, learned counsel appearing for the members of suspended board of directors submitted that the present CoC comprises mainly of Punjab National Bank, therefore, the choice of liquidator is swayed by Punjab National Bank s choice. Relying on an Order dated 25.02.2020 in CP (IB) No. 803/KB/2018, by this Adjudicating Authority, the learned counsel prayed for appointment of an independent person from the panel of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). 16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant responded to this by submitting that if there is any objection to the appointment of the proposed professional as liquidator then the present RP, the Applicant, may be appointed as the liquidator instead. 17. I have heard the ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the ld. Counsel representing the members of the suspended board of directors, and perused the record. 18. Section 33(2) of the Code enjoins the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor where the resolution professional, at any time during the CIRP but before confirmation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is fact finds its support first from the Resolution No.1 under Agenda Item No. 2 of the twelfth CoC meeting for appointment of the RP as the Liquidator which was voted against by 93.21% votes of the members of the CoC.1 Resolution No. 2 which was for the appointment of Mr. Pratim Bayal as the Liquidator was approved by 93.21% votes. Second, from the submission made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant during the hearing of this Petition that if there is any objection to the appointment of the proposed professional as Liquidator then the present Applicant, i.e., the RP, may be appointed as the Liquidator. However, instead of filing his written consent to be appointed as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor with this Adjudicating Authority, the RP chose to seek approval from the CoC that has no authority to appoint the Liquidator in the first place. Section 34 of the Code does not envisage any role 1 At page 328 of the IA (IB) No. 1027/KB/2020. for the CoC in appointment of the Liquidator. Both the resolutions under Agenda Item No. 2 of the twelfth CoC meeting are, therefore, misconceived and should have never been put up for discussion, let alone for vote. 23. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
