Committee Of Creditors Represented By ... vs V Venkata Sivakumar & Anr

Committee of Creditors Represented by IDBI Bank Ltd. ... Appellant

Versus V Venkata Sivakumar & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. S. Sathiyanarayanan, , Advocate For Respondents : Mr. V. Venkata Sivakumar, Liquidator ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

07.09.2020 The impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai has sent the

Corporate Debtor into 'Liquidation' after declining to extend the period of

'corporate insolvency resolution process' beyond the maximum prescribed period

of 330 days which is inclusive of judicial intervention period. It transpires from

the record that prayer for extension of time beyond 330 days emanating from the

Resolution Professional had been supported by the 'Committee of Cre ditors' but

the Adjudicating Authority did not find any exceptional circumstances

warranting such extension in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

'Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar

Gupta & Ors. - (2019) SCC Online SC 1478'.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and wading through the

record we are of the considered opinion, in the given circumstances, that the

Adjudicating Authority has adopted the right approach and no fault can be found

with the impugned order on that score.

Insofar as the appointment of 'Liquidator' is concerned, the learned

counsel for the Appellant submits that Shri V. Venkata Sivakumar was appointed as 'Liquidator' in terms of the impugned order to carry out the

liquidation process though he did not have any authorisation in terms of

Regulation 7-A of 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency

Professionals) Regulations, 2016. Shri V. Venkata Sivakumar submits that he

was the 'Resolution Professional' in the 'CIRP' process and when the Corporate

Debtor was sent into 'Liquidation', he was confirmed as 'Liquidator'.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered

opinion that if there be any irregularity in appointment/confirmation of

Respondent No. 1 as 'Liquidator' for not having a valid authorisation for

assignment on the date of such acceptance or commencement of such

assignment within the purview of Regulation 7-A of the aforesaid Regulations,

that does not adversely affect and render the order of liquidation passed by the

Adjudicating Authority illegal or invalid. If there is any irregularity, as contended

by the learned counsel for the Appellant, he shall be at liberty to bring it to the

notice of the Adjudicating Authority who may have a re-look at the appointment

of 'Liquidator' so far as the authorisation of Respondent No. 1 is concerned and

pass appropriate order.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Acting Chairperson

[ V.P. Singh ] Member (Technical)

[ Dr. Alok Srivastava ] Member (Technical) /ns/gc/

Comp. App. (AT) (Insol vency) No. 754 of 2020