AA Rightly Orders Liquidation as Corporate Debtor Having One Valuable Asset Couldn’t Be Sold as a Going Concern | NCLAT
- News|Blog|Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 4 July, 2024
Case Details: Amit Ahirrao v. Anagha Anasingharaju - [2024] 164 taxmann.com 63 (NCLAT-New Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Barun Mitra, Technical Member
- Rahul Totala & Rajat Malu, Advs. for the Appellant.
- Avinash R. Khanolkar, Sandeep Bajaj, Rautam Singh, Manvendra Kumar, Swetab Kumar, Ayush Tyagi & Ms Priyanka Vora, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the corporate debtor based on an application filed by respondent no.2 (i.e. financial creditor).
Thereafter, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) issued Form G through Resolution Professional (RP); however, no resolution plan was submitted, and the CoC unanimously resolved to liquidate the corporate debtor, leading to RP filing for liquidation, which the NCLT had approved.
The appellant challenged the NCLT’s order, arguing that they attempted to settle with financial creditors. However, the creditors were only interested in liquidation. Further, the appellant alleged that the liquidator should take steps to sell the asset as a going concern.
It was noted that the last date for submitting the resolution plan was 26.02.2022, which was extended until 09.03.2022. However, RP did not receive any plan until the meeting. Thus, the CoC did not commit an error in taking the decision of liquidation when RP received no resolution plan in spite of extending the the date.
NCLAT Held
The NCLAT held that the claim of the appellant that the sale should be conducted as a going concern could not be accepted, as CoC, in its meeting, had categorically noted that the corporate debtor was not a going concern. Further, Immovable property, which had been valued by valuers, was the only asset of the corporate debtor.
Therefore, the liquidator was to proceed to sell the corporate debtor’s assets and fix the reserve price based on the average of two valuation reports received during the CIRP process. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the NCLT was to be upheld.
List of Cases Reviewed
- CS Anagha Anasingaraju v. Virtue Infra and Entertainment (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 62 (NCLT -Mum.) (para 19) affirmed See Annex
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied