TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B Code applies to an application for Insolvency Resolution which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority and all the more, when there is no challenge to the admission of the petition/application - Section 12A of the Code came into effect on 06.06.2018. Rule 8 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 is quite relevant for withdrawal of an application under Section 12A of the Code. Besides this, Regulation 30A of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 is also relevant for withdrawal of application under Section 12A of the Code. It is well settled that a Resolution Plan is not an Auction/Sale/Recovery/Liquidation . A Resolution Applicant as per Section 30 of the Code is to scrutinise the Resolution Plan and to find out whether it fulfils the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code. If the Plan satisfies the requirements of Law, then the same is to be placed before the Committee of Creditors for its approval as per Section 30(3) of the Code and this can be approved by the Committee of Creditors as per requirement of Section 30(4) of the Code. If the Plan is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant two Appeals in Comp App (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 211/2021 and 212/2021 being dissatisfied with the common impugned order dated 12.08.2021 in MA/43/CHE/2021, IA/647/IB/2020 and IA/586/CHE/2021 in IBA/453/2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench II, Chennai). 2. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench II, Chennai) while passing the impugned order dated 12.08.2021 in MA/43/CHE/2021 in IBA/453/2019, alongwith IA/647/IB.2020 in IAB/453/2019 alongwith IA/586/CHE/2021 in IBA/453/2019 at paragraph 22 to 28 observed the following:- 22. A Settlement simpliciter under Section 12A of IBC, 2016 is different from a Resolution Plan given under Section 30 and 31 of IBC, 2016. However, in the present case, the promoter of the Corporate Debtor who is ineligible to submit a Resolution Plan because of Section 29A of IBC, 2016 is trying to provide a Settlement proposal, which is similar to a Resolution Plan under Section 12A of IBC, 2016. In other words, the promoter of the Corporate Debtor is trying to restructure the loans granted by the Financial Creditor under the pretext of a Settlement proposal to be given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor. The State Bank of India, in IA/586/CHE/2021 has sought for a direction to declare that the mortgage rights of the Applicant over the immovable property offered by the Corporate Debtor will not get diluted upon withdrawal of the CIRP by the 2nd Respondent under Section 12A of IBC, 2016 pursuant to the decision of the CoC members. It is averred in the Application that the Applicant Bank is having exclusive mortgage rights over the immovable property of the Corporate Debtor and the Applicant will be at liberty to enforce the SARFAESI Proceedings against the mortgaged property. Further, it is averred that the Applicant Bank viz. State Bank of India does not appear to have any objection for the withdrawal of the CIRP, provided that the rights of the Applicant Bank over the mortgaged property should not get diluted. Considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for State Bank of India we are of the view that since we are not inclined to allow the relief as sought for in MA/43(CHE)/2021, seeking withdrawal of the CIRP process. The necessary consequence will be an order of Liquidation, which is also passed vide separate order, the Applicant Bank may exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to protect the interest of all stakeholders the Appellant/Shareholder/Promoter of the Corporate Debtor had filed IA/647/IB/2020 under Section 60 (5) of the Code r/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking to consider the settlement proposal initially circulated by the Appellant, with the creditor on 10.8.2020 for withdrawal of the Main Application admitted under Section 7 of the Code. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Tribunal that the Adjudicating Authority based on the Application filed by the Appellant had directed the Ex Resolution Professional to convene a Meeting with COC to consider the proposal submitted by the Appellant and report to it on 2.11.2020. 7. It is the version of the Appellant that after deliberations and discussions, the settlement plan proposed by the Appellant as per Section 12 A of the I B Code was put to vote with an agenda for withdrawal of CIRP in tune with the settlement proposal which was initially voted by 70.63% of the Committee of Creditors in favour and later IARCL/one of the Financial Creditors through letter dated 05.03.2021 had intimated the 2nd Respondent that in the light of further discussions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dum to the Settlement Plan was filed by the Appellant to the Union Bank of India. On 08.01.2021 the15th CoC took place, where the CoC had prayed for time to contemplate the offer and to get back to the Resolution Professional for voting. On 14.01.2021 an addendum to the Settlement Plan was filed by the Appellant. 13. Indeed, on 18.01.2021, the 16th Committee of Creditors Meeting took place, where the Committee of Creditors was asked to vote on the praying for withdrawal of Section 7 application projected by the IDBI Bank Ltd basis the settlement proposal. On 08.02.2021 the voting results on the Settlement Proposal by the Committee of Creditors was 70.63. 14. On 08.03.2021, the financial creditor/International Assets Reconstruction Co Ltd having 23.60% voting shares wrote to the Resolution Professional stating that it had reconsidered its vote and had now approved the Resolution and accordingly requested the Resolution Professional to pray for appropriate directions from the Adjudicating Authority for validation of the recasted vote or seek fresh voting on the One Time Settlement. 15 As a matter of fact, the Resolution Professional on 24.03.2021 filed MA/12(CHE)/2021 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Law. 20. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant comes out with a plea that Section 12 A of the I B Code does not speak of Settlement Plan and only mandates the approval of the majority of the Committee of Creditors Members to withdraw the Application admitted under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10 by the Original Applicant with an objective that once an Application projected by the Original Applicant is admitted and Committee is formed the proceedings become action in rem rather than action in personam . 21. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Settlement Plan was irrelevant to the determination of the withdrawal application filed under Section 12A of the Code and inspite of the fact that no arguments were advanced regarding the terms itself and no querries were raised before the Adjudicating Authority and yet the said Authority had passed the impugned order on a mistaken premises. 22. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges that the Adjudicating Authority had omitted to advert to Clause 4 of Chapter VIII of the Code under the Caption Binding Effect which takes that the Settlement Plan is binding on the company and such Members ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companied by a bank guarantee towards estimated cost incurred for purposes of clauses (c) and (d) of Regulation 31 till the date of application. (3) The committee shall consider the application made under sub-regulation (1) within seven days of its constitution or seven days of receipt of the application, whichever is later. (4) Where the application is approved by the committee with ninety percent voting share, the resolution professional shall submit the application under sub-regulation (1) to the Adjudicating Authority on behalf of the applicant, within three days of such approval. (5) The Adjudicating Authority may, by order, approve the application submitted under sub-regulation (4). This Court, by its order dated 14.12.2018 in Brilliant Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. S. Rajagopal Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 31557/2018, has stated that Regulation 30A(1) is not mandatory but is directory for the simple reason that on the facts of a given case, an application for withdrawal may be allowed in exceptional cases even after issue of invitation for expression of interest under Regulation 36A. 52. It is clear that once the Code gets triggered by admission of a creditor s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein at paragraph 72 to 75 it is observed as under:- Withdrawal of application 72. Section 12A of the IBC was inserted with effect from 6 June 2018 by Amending Act 26 of 2018. Under Section 12A, the Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal of an application which is admitted under Sections 7, 9 and 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of a 90 per cent voting share of the CoC in such manner as may be specified. Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, on the other hand, contemplates that the NCLT, functioning as the Adjudicating Authority, may permit a withdrawal of an application made under Rule 4 (by the financial creditor), Rule 6 (by the operational creditor) or Rule 7 (by the corporate applicant) on the request made by the applicant before its admission. Regulation 30-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 contains provisions for the withdrawal of an application. Under Regulation 30-A, as it originally stood, an application for withdrawal under Section 12-A was required to be submitted before the issuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake it clear that at any stage where the Committee of Creditors is not yet constituted, a party can approach NCLT directly, which Tribunal may, in exercise of its inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, allow or disallow an application for withdrawal or settlement. This will be decided after hearing all the parties concerned and considering all relevant factors on the facts of each case. 83. The main thrust against the provision of Section 12-A is the fact that ninety per cent of the Committee of Creditors has to allow withdrawal. This high threshold has been explained in the ILC Report as all financial creditors have to put their heads together to allow such withdrawal as, ordinarily, an omnibus settlement involving all creditors ought, ideally, to be entered into. This explains why ninety per cent, which is substantially all the financial creditors, have to grant their approval to an individual withdrawal or settlement. In any case, the figure of ninety per cent, in the absence of anything further to show that it is arbitrary, must pertain to the domain of legislative policy, which has been explained by the Report (supra). Also, it is clear, that under Section 60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the central and state governments), local authorities, guarantors and other stakeholders. The approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 results in a clean slate, as held in the judgment of this Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta. Justice Rohinton F Nariman, speaking for the three judge Bench of this Court, observed: 105. Section 31(1) of the Code makes it clear that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors it shall be binding on all stakeholders, including guarantors. This is for the reason that this provision ensures that the successful resolution applicant starts running the business of the corporate debtor on a fresh slate as it were. In SBI v. V. Ramakrishnan [SBI v. V. Ramakrishnan, (2018) 17 SCC 394 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 458] , this Court relying upon Section 31 of the Code has held: (SCC p. 411, para 25) 25. Section 31 of the Act was also strongly relied upon by the respondents. This section only states that once a resolution plan, as approved by the Committee of Creditors, takes effect, it shall be binding on the corporate debtor as well as the guarantor. This is for the reason that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e equated with a withdrawal simpliciter of an application, as is contemplated under Section 12-A of the IBC. A scheme of compromise or arrangement, upon receiving sanction under Sub-section (6) of Section 230, binds the company, its creditors and members or a class of persons or creditors as the case may be as well as the liquidator (appointed under the Act of 2013 or the IBC). Both, the resolution plan upon being approved under Section 31 of the IBC and a scheme of compromise or arrangement upon being sanctioned under Sub-section (6) of Section 230, represent the culmination of the process. This must be distinguished from a mere withdrawal of an application under Section 12-A. There is a clear distinction between these processes, in terms of statutory context and its consequences and the latter cannot be equated with the former. 29. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant adverts to the Judgement of this Tribunal in Vipul Dilip Shah Others V. Parinee Developers Pvt Ltd through Resolution Professional Subhash Chadra Modi Ors (vide Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.451 and 442 of 2021 wherein at paragraph 12 and 13 it is held as under:- 12. We have considered the ground for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esolution Process was initiated. 31. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the Judgement of this Tribunal dated 4.07.2019 in Comp App (AT)(Ins) No.203 of 2019 wherein at paragraph 20 it is observed as under:- 20. The Committee of Creditors is to consider the feasibility, viability and such other requirements as has been specified by the Board. If it proposes maximisation of the assets and is found to be feasible, viable and fulfil all other requirements as specified by the Board, the company being MSME, it is not necessary for the Committee of Creditors to follow all the procedures under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process . For example, if case is settled before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors or in terms of Section 12A on the basis of offer given by Promoter, in such case, all other procedure for calling of application of Resolution Applicant etc are not followed. If the Promoter satisfy all the creditors and is in a position to keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, it is always open to Committee of Creditors to accept the terms of settlement and approve it by 90% of the voting shares. The same principle can be follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion can be made for withdrawal of an application under Section 7 or Section 9 on the ground that the application was filed before a cutoff date or filed after a cutoff date. Such cutoff date has no nexus with the objective which is to be achieved. The Adjudicating Authority having failed to notice the aforesaid provisions issued long order discussing regulations and provisions of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority should have allowed application of withdrawal filed by the Applicant-Punjab National Bank, the Committee of Creditors having approved the Settlement with 100% voting share. 34. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out the Judgement of this Tribunal dated 06.09.2019 in Shaji Purushothaman V. Union Bank of India Ors (vide Comp App (AT)(Ins) No.921/2019) wherein at paragraph 8 and 9 it is observed as under:- 8. In the circumstances, while we are not inclined to issue any specific direction, give liberty to the Appellant to move an application u/s 12A for settling the claims of all the Creditors including the guarantors. 9. If an application u/s 12A is filed by the Appellant, the Committee of Creditors may decide as to whether the proposal given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed, the Committee of Creditors had convened its operations and conducted the 9th COC Meeting on 07.02.2020. Subsequently, the Committee of Creditors in their Meeting dated 25.02.2020 and postpone to 26.02.2020 with 98.32% votes had authorised the Resolution Professional to prefer an application before the Adjudicating Authority for an exclusion of a period of 30 days in CIRP. 40. Based on the application which was filed on 28.02.2020 the Adjudicating Authority on 13.03.2020 has passed an order excluding a period of 30 days from the CIRP time frame of the Corporate Debtor. 41. Added further, the Appellate Authority, on 30.03.2020 had passed in suo moto Company Appeal (AT) No.1/2020 an order stating that the period of lockdown as ordered by the Central Government and the State Government shall be excluded for the purpose of counting the period for Resolution Process under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in all cases where Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has been initiated and pending before any Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal or in Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal and in the teeth of said order etc., the CIRP was exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Considering the fact that the COC was in the last stage of finalising the Resolution Plan of RPIFL, the Committee of Creditors opined that unless the CIRP period was extended (the same would come to an end on 29.02.2020) and that they might not provide them an opportunity to consider and vote on the Resolution Plan of RPIFL. Hence the Committee of Creditors, in its Meeting dated 25.02.2020 adjourned to 26.02.2020, with 98.32% vote had authorised the Resolution Professional to file an Application before the Tribunal seeking exclusion of a period of 30 days in CIRP and that the application was filed on 28.02.2020. The Tribunal through an exclusion order dated 1303.2020 but delivered on 16.03.2020 had excluded a period of 30 days from CIRP time frame of the Corporate Debtor. 46. The Resolution Professional convened the 12th Meeting of the Committee of Creditors on 16.03.2020 and inter alia presented the compliant Resolution Plan before the CoC for its approval and post discussions at the Meeting, the Plan was put up for e-voting and the results were declared on 04.03.2020 and the Resolution Plan of RPIFL failed to receive requisite majority of 66% of the voting share of the Memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essional through a letter dated 05.03.2021 from IARCL, received an email dated 08.03.2021 stating that it had decided to change its vote as casted against the OTS Resolution, now to approve the Resolution. It was mentioned that the said vote now if allowed to be considered by the Hon ble Adjudicating Authority after necessary directions/orders would reach the requisite 90% of voting threshold. The Resolution Professional intimated the Committee of Creditors of the said letter and the request stated therein through email dated 09.03.2021. 52. The Resolution Professional (based on the letter of IARCL) had filed an application on 24.03.2021 before the Adjudicating Authority and by an order dated 29.03.2021 the Resolution Professional was directed to convene a Committee of Creditors and seek approval of the COC within 10 working days from the date of the order. 53. The Resolution Professional had convened the 17th COC Meeting on 01.04.2021 and the voting lines for the Committee of Creditors to vote on the following agenda was opened up:- To take approval of the Committee of Creditors for the voting agenda item voted upon in the sixteenth meeting of the committee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porate Debtor was filed before the Adjudicating Authority . The asset memorandum, SCC Constitution and Preliminary Report with the Adjudicating Authority was filed by the Liquidator on 26.10.2021. 58. The 1st Stakeholder Consultation Committee Meeting was conducted on 14.12.2021 to update the stakeholders on the progress so far made in the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor, appointment of valuers and other professionals to assist the liquidator and to arrive at a strategy to be adopted for the sale of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 12A 59. To be noted that, Section 12A of the I B Code applies to an application for Insolvency Resolution which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority and all the more, when there is no challenge to the admission of the petition/application. WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION 60. It is to be remembered that as per Rule 8 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority may allow withdrawal an application based on the applicant s request. By virtue of the 2nd amendment to the I B Code, 2016 (during the year 2018) an Adjudicating Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 Life Insurance Corp of India 354.36 354.36 - 3 State Bank of India 395.97 280.50 115.47 4 Union Bank of India 645.17 645.17 6 International Asset Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd 1,147.70 1,147.69 0.01 7 IDBI Bank Ltd 876.07 876.07 0.01 8 Punjab National Bank 305.83 305.83 - 9 Bank of India 74.42 74.42 - 10 Masdar Energy Ltd UAE 920.43 776.88 143.55 11 Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 Punjab National Bank 305.83 0.62 3.52 4.14 8 Bank of India 74.42 0.15 0.85 1.00 9 Masdar Energy Ltd, UAE 776.88 1.58 8.94 10.52 Total 4,863.88 42.45 285.76 328.21 67. From the above Settlement Proposal, it is latently and patently quite clear that the said proposal was taken into account and considered by the Committee of Creditors and that the nine financial creditors pertaining to the Corporate Debtor had agreed to receive an amount of ₹ 328.21 crores towards the settlement sum, as against the total admitted claim of ₹ 4,863.88 crores. 68. In the Settlement proposal under 3. Financial Proposal, 3.1 overview, it mentioned as under:- S.No Particulars Amount ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stricto sense of the one, envisaged as per Section 12A of Code. 71. It is well settled that a Resolution Plan is not an Auction/Sale/Recovery/Liquidation . A Resolution Applicant as per Section 30 of the Code is to scrutinise the Resolution Plan and to find out whether it fulfils the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code. If the Plan satisfies the requirements of Law, then the same is to be placed before the Committee of Creditors for its approval as per Section 30(3) of the Code and this can be approved by the Committee of Creditors as per requirement of Section 30(4) of the Code. If the Plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors, the Resolution Plan is to be placed before the Adjudicating Authority as per Section 31 of the Code and the said Authority is to apply his thinking judicial mind to the Resolution Plan so furnished, and on being satisfied with the Plan that it fulfils the ingredients or does not meet the ingredients or Section 30 of the Code may either accord approval to the Plan or negative the same. 72. In the instant case on hand, the Committee of Creditors had voted under Section 12A of the Code without even getting a single sum from the promoter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority to the effect that the projected settlement proposal plan of the promotor of the Corporate Debtor is not a settlement simpliciter as envisaged under Section 12-A of the Code, 2016 rather it is a business restructuring plan and further that no finality was reached between the Promotor of the Corporate Debtor and Committee of Creditors as per Clause 2 of Chapter VIII of the Settlement proposal and hence, based on ambiguity of the terms of the settlement it cannot order for withdrawal of CIRP are free from legal infirmities. Consequently, the Appeal fails. COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(CH)(INSOLVENCY) NO.212/2021 PREAMBLE: 77. The Appellant has filed the present Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 212/2021 questioning the impugned order dated 12.08.2021 in I.A./837/IB/2020 in IBA/453 OF 2019 ordering liquidation of the Corporate Debtor in continuation of the dismissal order passed through a common order 12.08.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in MA/43/CHE/2021 and IA/647/IB/2020 and I.A./586/CHE/2021 in IBA/453/19 wherein MA/43/CHE/2021 was filed by the 2nd Respondent with the approval of 94.23% voting share of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to refuse to allow withdrawal of a case, based on the reason that CIRP would have to undergone again . 83. The other contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority was not correct in arriving at a conclusion that the terms of the Settlement is an ambiguous one since there is no final offer made by the Appellant and also the acceptance made by the CoC etc. 84. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to point out that it is not the duty of the Adjudicating Authority to investigate commercial ramification of the Committee of Creditor s decisions, especially when it is not in the nature of a Resolution Plan , but a Withdrawal Simpliciter . 85. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is an excessive one and suffers from non-application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority . 86. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, there is no requirement that money is need to be paid in advance for exercising the power under Section 12A of the Code. Also that the Settlement Plan was an irrelevant one to the determination of the Withdrawal Application filed under Section 12A of the Code. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2th meeting of the OC on 16.03.2020 and amongst others, presented the compliant Resolution Plan before the COC for its approval. Post discussions at the meeting in relation to the final compliant version of the Resolution Plan, the plan was put for e-coting, the results for which were declared on April 4, 2020. Copy of the minutes of the CoC meeting held on 16.03.2020 is annexed and marked as Annexure A-13 . 29. In terms of the e-voting results as on April, 4, 2020, the Resolution Plan of RPIFL failed to receive the requisite majority of 66% of the voting share of the members of the CoC and was consequently rejected by the CoC on account of having received only a vote of 60.90% in favour of the Resolution Plan, which does not cross the minimum threshold as required under Section 30(4) of the Code. Copy of the voting results is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A-14 . 30. In view of no resolution plan having received the requisite approval of the CoC under S.30(4) of the Code despite all efforts having been undertaken to achieve a resolution and the expiry of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, the present Application has been filed by the Resolution Professional befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority is not receipt of Resolution Plan on or before the expiry of the Maximum Period allowed for completion of the Insolvency Resolution Plan, then, liquidation of the Corporate Debtor is to ensue. If at any time prior to the confirmation of a Resolution Plan, the Committee of Creditor resolve by a 66% majority of voting shares where the Corporate Debtor is to be liquidated, then, the liquidation may follow suit. If the Corporate Debtor breaches the conditions of the Resolution Plan and upon an Application by individual (other than the Corporate Debtor), whose interest are prejudicially affected by such breach, the Adjudicating Authority can arrive at a conclusion that the Corporate Debtor had violated the condition of the Resolution Plan, in which event, the Code visualises initiation of the Liquidation Process in the considered opinion of this Tribunal . Suffice it for this Tribunal to make a pertinent mention that if any of the aforesaid situations exist, the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to pass an order requiring the Corporate Debtor to be liquidated as per the relevant provisions Code. 94. If the time period for CIRP was extended but the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
