Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Rajeswary Ramakrishnan vs V Venkata Sivakumar & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal27 July 2020

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the only resolution plan received in the corporate insolvency resolution process was submitted by a prospective resolution applicant who is ineligible under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, there is no valid resolution plan for consideration, and the Adjudicating Authority is left with no option but to order liquidation of the corporate debtor, even where the corporate insolvency resolution process has been extended beyond 330 days.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 622 of 2020IN THE MATTER OF:

Rajeswary Ramakrishnan ...Appellant

Vs.

V. Venkata Sivakumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Sharath Chandran and Mr. Achyuth Ajith Kumar, Advocates.

For Respondents:- Sri V. Venkata Sivakumar, IRP. Ms. Deena Dhayalan, Advocate. Mr. S. Sathiya Narayanan, Advocate for R2.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

27.07.2020─ After hearing learned counsel for the Appellant, we find

that the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),

Special Bench, Chennai has rightly declined to extend the Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process period beyond 330 days holding that no

exceptional circumstances warranting such extension existed. It appears

that the only Resolution Plan received during the Corporate Insolvency

Resolution Process was one from Mr. Jayaram Chowdary who admittedly

owed Rs.192 Crores to the State Bank of India which had declared his

account as NPA in the year 2018 rendering him ineligible within the ambit

of Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to be a

Resolution Applicant. It is a self-confessed ineligibility on the part of the

Contd/-..........

-2-

proposed Resolution Applicant Mr. Jayaram Chowdary and viewed in that

context that no exception can be taken to the observations made by the

Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order that there was no

Resolution Plan for consideration even within the extended period of

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process spanning 330 days. We find no

legal infirmity in the impugned order. In absence of a valid Resolution

Plan, the Adjudicating Authority was left with no option but to send the

Corporate Debtor into the liquidation.

In view of the foregoing observations, the appeal is dismissed.

However, we make it clear that this order will not preclude any eligible

person from floating a comprise/ scheme of arrangement within the

ambit of Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 during the liquidation

process.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson

[V.P. Singh] Member(Technical)

[Shreesha Merla] Member(Technical) Ar/ g

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 622 of 2020

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