CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2022) 04 NCLAT CK 0029

Vishal Harish Choudhary vs Arihant Nenawati

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 12 April 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member (T) · Shreesha Merla, Member (T)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 170 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 364 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which order the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Application filed by the Resolution Professional for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

2.

Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that Appellant was prejudiced since there was only one Financial Creditor in the CoC having 100% voting share, hence, the entire CoC was controlled by one Financial Creditor. It further submitted that the Suspended Directors were also not given opportunity by the Adjudicating Authority before passing order for liquidation.

3.

We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

4.

The CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor by order dated 13.11.2019. After receipt of the claim, CoC was constituted. In 6th CoC meeting held on 10.09.2020, CoC took view that sale of the Corporate Debtor is not possible as it is not a going concern and decided that sale of Corporate Debtor cannot be done as a going concern and by 100% voting share of the CoC resolution for liquidation was approved. The said factum has been clearly noticed in the Para 7 of the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The IRP then filed application as per provisions of Section 33 of the Code, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

5.

The mere fact that CoC is constituent of only one Financial Creditor which has 100% voting share cannot be said to be a ground on which the Appellant can question order of liquidation. Decision for liquidation has been taken with 100% voting share of the Financial Creditor as has been noted by the Adjudicating Authority. Further, the submission of the Appellant that the Suspended Directors were entitled to given opportunity by the Adjudicating Authority before passing the order of liquidation has also no substance. The Adjudicating Authority passed the order on the Application of the Resolution Professional after hearing the Financial Creditor. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.