North East Centre For Technology ... vs Sri Vari Metal Works Pvt Ltd & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 330 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Adjudicating Authority has ordered liquidation after the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process had run for approximately 270 days, the liquidation order cannot be held illegal on the ground that a resolution plan was submitted late, where that plan was submitted after the expression of interest window and more than four months after the expression of interest was invited, and the Committee of Creditors was therefore entitled to decline to consider it. Where a resolution plan is not submitted within the time stipulated in the insolvency process, the resolution plan cannot be considered by the Committee of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority is not bound to treat it as a plan that complied with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Following the decision in Y. Shivram Prasad v. S. Dhanapal, a liquidator who is directed to act in accordance with law must take steps under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 where a compromise or arrangement is proposed, and failing that, must pursue an outright sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern so as to enable the employees to continue.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach ...Appellant
Vs.
Sri Vari Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. P.S. Singh, Advocate.
O R D E R
16.04.2019─ This appeal has been preferred by 'North East Centre
for Technology Application and Reach'- ('Financial Creditor') against the
order dated 5th December, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Single Bench, Chennai, whereby the
application under Sections 33(1)(a), 33(2) and 34(1) of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) filed by the 'Resolution
Professional' has been allowed and order of liquidation has been passed
with regard to 'M/s. Sri Vari Metal Works Private Limited'- ('Corporate
Debtor').
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted
that a 'Resolution Plan' was submitted by one 'M/s. Grandvalult
Enterprises, Bengaluru' which prima facie complied with the provisions
of Section 30(2) of the 'I&B Code' and, therefore, it was required to be
placed before the 'Committee of Creditors' for voting. However, without 2
placing the matter before the 'Committee of Creditors', the 'Resolution
Professional' applied for liquidation.
3. In the present case, we find that the 'Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process' against the 'Corporate Debtor' was initiated on 9th
January, 2018 and on 13th November, 2018, when the 'Resolution
Professional' filed Miscellaneous Application under Sections 33 & 34 of
the 'I&B Code' by that time approximately 270 days had passed.
4. In the aforesaid background, the Adjudicating Authority having
ordered for liquidation, it cannot be held to be illegal. This apart, we find
that the Expression of Interest was invited on 31st May, 2018 and in the
third meeting of the 'Committee of Creditors' held on 27th June, 2018 it
was informed that one 'M/s. Grandvalult Enterprises, Bengaluru' had
expressed its interest for submitting the 'Resolution Plan'. In fact, no
'Resolution Plan' was filed by the said 'M/s. Grandvalult Enterprises,
Bengaluru' which submitted it much later i.e. after more than four
months on 4th October, 2018. It was informed to the 'Committee of
Creditors' on 5th October, 2018 but due to late submission of the
'Resolution Plan', the 'Committee of Creditors' declined to consider the
same.
5. Thus, we find that the 'Resolution Plan' submitted by 'M/s.
Grandvalult Enterprises, Bengaluru' was not submitted within time and
therefore, the 'Resolution Plan' of the said 'M/s. Grandvalult Enterprises,
Bengaluru' was not considered.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 330 of 2019 3
6. For the reasons aforesaid, while we are not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order dated 5th December, 2018, we direct the
Liquidator to act in accordance with law in terms of the decision of this
Appellate Tribunal in "Y. Shivram Prasad Vs. S. Dhanapal & Ors.─
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 224 of 2018" wherein this
Appellate Tribunal held and observed as follows:
"17. Normally, the total period for liquidation is to be completed preferably within two years. Therefore, in "S.C. Sekaran v. Amit Gupta & Ors." (Supra), this Appellate Tribunal allowed 90 days' time to take steps under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. In case, for any reason the liquidation process under Section 230 takes more time, it is open to the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) to extend the period if there is a chance of approval of arrangement of the scheme.
18. During proceeding under Section 230, if any, objection is raised, it is open to the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) which has power to pass order under Section 230 to overrule the objections, if the arrangement and scheme is beneficial for revival of the 'Corporate Debtor' (Company). While passing such order, the Adjudicating Authority is to play dual role, one as the Adjudicating Authority in the matter of liquidation and other as a Tribunal for passing order under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. As the liquidation so taken up under the 'I&B Code', the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 330 of 2019 4
arrangement of scheme should be in consonance with the statement and object of the 'I&B Code'. Meaning thereby, the scheme must ensure maximisation of the assets of the 'Corporate Debtor' and balance the stakeholders such as, the 'Financial Creditors', 'Operational Creditors', 'Secured Creditors' and 'Unsecured Creditors' without any discrimination. Before approval of an arrangement or Scheme, the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) should follow the same principle and should allow the 'Liquidator' to constitute a 'Committee of Creditors' for its opinion to find out whether the arrangement of Scheme is viable, feasible and having appropriate financial matrix. It will be open for the Adjudicating Authority as a Tribunal to approve the arrangement or Scheme in spite of some irrelevant objections as may be raised by one or other creditor or member keeping in mind the object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
19. In view of the observations aforesaid, we hold that the liquidator is required to act in terms of the aforesaid directions of the Appellate Tribunal and take steps under Section 230 of the Companies Act. If the members or the 'Corporate Debtor' or the 'creditors' or a class of creditors like 'Financial Creditor' or 'Operational Creditor' approach the company through the liquidator for compromise or arrangement by making proposal of payment to all the creditor(s), the Liquidator on behalf of the company will move an application under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the Adjudicating Authority i.e. National Company Law Tribunal,
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 330 of 2019 5
Chennai Bench, in terms of the observations as made in above. On failure, as observed above, steps should be taken for outright sale of the 'Corporate Debtor' so as to enable the employees to continue.
20. Both the appeals are disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. No cost."
7. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and
directions. No costs.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial)
(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) Ar/g
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 330 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