AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
09.11.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
These two appeals have been filed against the Order dated 15.09.2023 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Application I.A. No. 105/AHM/2022 praying for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor as well as rejected the I.A. No. 25/AHM/2023 filed by the Appellant praying various reliefs.
Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this Appeal are. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was initiated by Order dated 15.04.2021. In the CIRP, no Resolution Plan can be received. The Appellant who is suspended director of the Corporate Debtor challenged the Order of Admission before this tribunal which appeal came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal, the Appellant challenged the order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which Civil Appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The CoC passed a resolution on 06.01.2022 resolving to liquidate the Corporate Debtor since no resolution plan has been received in the CIRP. In pursuance of the decision of the CoC to liquidate the Corporate Debtor, I.A. was filed by the RP being I.A. No. 105/AHM/2022. The Appellant also filed I.A. No. 25/AHM/2023 where following prayers were made:
“A. This Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may be pleased to set aside the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Mithilanchal Industries Private Ltd, made pursuant to the order dated 15.04.2021 in CP (IB) No. 173 of 2019 considering the peculiar facts and circumstances including in particular the fraudulent and malicious proceedings taken by respondent bank read with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidarbha Industries Power Limited vs. Axis Bank, reported at (2022) 8 SCC 352, in the interest of justice;
B. This Hon 'ble Adjudicating Authority may be impose such penalty as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority upon the respondent bank for initiating fraudulent and malicious proceedings against Mithilanchal Industries Private Ltd, the Corporate Debtor, in the interest of justice.
C. This Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may be pleased to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice”.
The adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order has allowed the Application of Resolution Professional directing for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and simultaneously rejected the I.A. No. 25/AHM/2023 filed by the Appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that Resolution Professional has not conducted the CIRP in accordance with the scheme of IBC and there were several allegations against the Resolution Professional. It is further submitted that initiation of CIRP itself was bad.
We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
When the Adjudicating Authority admitted Section 7 Application the same was challenged by the Appellant before this Tribunal as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Civil Appeal No. 4677 of 2021 which was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16th August, 2021. We see no reason to entertain any of the submissions of the Appellant questioning the CIRP and the prayer in the Application I.A. No. 25/AHM/2023 to set aside the entire CIRP was wholly misconceived. When no resolution plan has come up in the CIRP, Liquidation is only option which was rightly resolved by the CoC in its meeting as noticed above. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in allowing the Application of Resolution Professional for liquidation.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended that Appellant is also interesting in proposing a scheme in the liquidation. The suspended management is fully entitled to submit a scheme provided it is eligible within meaning of Section 29A as per Regulation 2B of the Liquidation Process, Regulations, 2016.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly submits that there is various litigation on behalf of Companies as well as Suspended Director against the Bank which ought to have been pursued by the Resolution Professional. We are of the view that in so far as litigation by Suspended Director against the Bank, there was no occasion to RP to pursue the same as far as any litigation on behalf of the Company, leave of the Court was required for pursuing the said application which admittedly has not been obtained. We see no substance in the above submission of the Appellant.
With the above observations, we dismiss these Appeals.