Avasarala Venkateshwar Rao vs Servomax India Pvt Ltd & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No. 252 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A resolution applicant who has no right under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to file a resolution plan has no standing to seek exclusion of time for the purpose of computing the 270-day period under Section 33(1) read with Section 34; any such exclusion application must be made by the Committee of Creditors or the Resolution Professional, and absent such an application no relief can be granted to the appellant on that basis. Where the Committee of Creditors has not put a resolution plan to a vote and the Adjudicating Authority has ordered liquidation under Sections 33(1)(a) and 34, the appellate tribunal will not interfere with the liquidation order on the appellant's claim alone, and the liquidator is to proceed in accordance with the tribunal's earlier decision in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 224 of 2018, including taking steps under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Code.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Avasarala Venkateshwra Rao .....Appellant Vs. M/s. Servomax India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ......Respondents Present : For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Bohra, Advocate
For Respondents: Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Advocate
Mr. G.Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate - Liquidator
O R D E R
06.08.2019 - The Appellant, who claimed to be a 'Resolution Applicant' has
preferred this appeal against the order dated 4th February, 2019 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority ('National Company Law Tribunal'), Hyderabad Bench,
Hyderabad whereby at the instance of 'Committee of Creditors', an application
preferred by 'Resolution Professional', order of liquidation was passed u/s 33(1)(a)
and 34 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('I&B' Code, for short).
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits referring to
9th meeting of the 'Committee of Creditors' (at page-365 of Vol.II), none of the
....contd.
2 four 'Resolution Plan' were put before the 'Committee of Creditors' on the ground
that they can get higher realisation at less time period given in the 'Resolution
Plan'.
3. The aforesaid ground given was that the 'Resolution Plan' submitted by
different persons sought number of years to resolve the matter.
4. Mr. G.Madhusudhan Rao, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Liquidator submits that none of the 'Plan' were found to be viable and feasible. It
is also submitted that now more than 270 days have passed and an application
u/s 33(1) read with Section 34 was filed before the Adjudicating Authority.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has filed an
application before the Adjudicating Authority for exclusion of 126 days for the
purpose of counting the period of 270 days. However, the 'Resolution Applicant'
having no right to file a 'Resolution Plan' as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Arcelormittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. -
(2018) SCC OnLine SC 1733", the 'Resolution Applicant' cannot file any
application for exclusion of any period for the purpose of counting total period of
270 days for which it was open to the 'Committee of Creditors' / 'Resolution
Professional' to file application for exclusion of time, for good ground and if the
'Resolution Plan' is viable and feasible, 'Resolution Plan' needs consideration, in
absence of such application by the 'Committee of Creditors' / 'Resolution
3 Professional', no relief can be granted in an application preferred by the
Appellant.
6. For the reason aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the
Impugned Order dated 4th February, 2019 whereby Adjudicating Authority
issued liquidation order , however, we make it clear that Liquidator is to act in
terms of the decision of this Appellate Tribunal passed in Company Appeal
(AT) (Insolvency) No. 224 of 2018 in the matter of Y. Shivram Prasad Vs.
S. Dhanapal & Ors. on 27th February, 2019 and may proceed to first take
steps u/s 230 of the Companies Act read with the 'I&B' Code wherein they can
act on any plan, as scheme, agreeable or by class of the 'Creditor' / class of
Members.
The appeal is disposed of. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)
ss/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No. 252 of 2019
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free