R. Anil Bafna vs Madhu Desikan & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 757 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal, declining to interfere with a liquidation order passed in the absence of a viable resolution plan, directs the liquidator to act on the earlier decision in Y. Shivram Prasad v. S. Dhanapal, which holds that where a liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is accompanied by a proposed compromise or arrangement, the liquidator on behalf of the corporate debtor must move the Adjudicating Authority under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013; that the Adjudicating Authority, acting in its dual capacity as liquidation court and as a Section 230 tribunal, may approve such an arrangement notwithstanding objections, provided it maximises the corporate debtor's assets, balances all classes of stakeholders without discrimination, and is viable and feasible as assessed by a Committee of Creditors constituted by the liquidator; and that where no such arrangement succeeds, outright sale of the corporate debtor should follow, so as to enable the employees to continue.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
R. Anil Bafna .... Appellant
Vs
Madhu Desikan & Ors. .... Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Ashwin Kumar D.S. and Ms. Aditi Dani, Advocates.
For Respondents:
ORDER
05.07.2019 The Appellant Mr. R. Anil Bafna, Promoter and Director of
Jain Granites & Projects Limited ('Corporate Debtor') preferred this Appeal
against order dated 1st November, 2018, whereby and whereunder the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Division Bench,
Chennai passed order of liquidation in absence of viable and feasible
'Resolution Plan'.
2. Earlier, the Appellant took plea that there was revised 'Resolution Plan'
which was to be filed, but because of order of liquidation, it could not be
considered by the 'Committee of Creditors'.
3. To find out whether the resolution process could be successful by
excluding certain period, we asked the 'Committee of Creditors' to propose
revise 'Resolution Plan'. But after consideration of the same, it is informed
by the Counsel for the 'Committee of Creditors' that the revised 'Resolution
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 757 of 2018 Page 1 of 4 Plan' is also not viable and feasible. In these circumstances, Counsel for the
Appellant submits that they will take appropriate steps on the stage of
proceeding under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.
4. In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with
the impugned order dated 1st November, 2018. However, we direct the
Liquidator to act in terms of the decision of this Tribunal in Y. Shivram
Prasad vs. S. Dhanapal & Ors. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) N.224 of
2018 decided on 27.02.2019, wherein this Appellate Tribunal observed
and directed as follows: -
"15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant (Promoter) submitted that the provisions under Section 230 may not be completed within 90 days, as observed in "S.C. Sekaran v. Amit Gupta & Ors."
(Supra).
16. It is further submitted that there will be objections by some of the creditors or members who may not allow the Tribunal to pass appropriate order under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.
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.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 757 of 2018 Page 2 of 4 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 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
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 757 of 2018 Page 3 of 4 '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, 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."
5. The Appellant being Promoter can take advantage of Section 230 in
consultation with the 'Liquidator'. The Appeal stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observations.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)
Ash/GC
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 757 of 2018 Page 4 of 4
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