Mr. Ravindra Chaturvedi, Liquidator of Excel Glasses Ltd. - “Going Concern means all the assets, tangibles or intangibles and resources needed to continue to operate independently a business activity which may be whole or a part of the business of the corporate debtor without values being assigned to the individual asset or resource.”

 NCLT Kochi (2024.08.14) in Mr. Ravindra Chaturvedi, Liquidator of Excel Glasses Ltd. [IA(IBC)/307/KOB/2024 in MA/07/KOB/2019 in IBA/258/CB/2019] held that; 

• "The first order objective is "resolution". The second order objective is "maximisation of value of assets of the 'Corporate Debtor" and the third order objective is "promoting entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balancing the interests".

• The object of the Code is not for liquidation but for resolution. In the instant case, Section 60(5)(c) empowers the Adjudicating Authority to grant necessary reliefs even during liquidation.

• “Going Concern means all the assets, tangibles or intangibles and resources needed to continue to operate independently a business activity which may be whole or a part of the business of the corporate debtor without values being assigned to the individual asset or resource.”

• “The enterprise is normally viewed as a going concern that is as continuing operation for the foreseeable future. It is assumed that the enterprise has neither the intention nor the necessity of liquidating or curtailing materially the scale of the operation”.

Excerpts of the Order;

# 1. The application has been filed under Section 60(5) of IBC,2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 by the Liquidator in the matter of Excel Glasses Limited, seeking the following relief: -

• ➢ To consider granting permission to the applicant herein for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern in terms of Regulation 32A of Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 as per the E-Auction process Memorandum approved by the SCC.

# 2. The NCLT Chennai Bench vide order dated 26.03.2019 in IBA/258/CB/2019 admitted the Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. During the CIRP process, the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor discussed and decided that since no resolution plan had been received, the way forward for the Corporate Debtor is liquidation. Accordingly, during the 4th CoC meeting dated 21st August 2019, the members of the CoC unanimously agreed and resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor with 100%voting.

# 3. Consequently, an application was filed before this Tribunal, under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Code seeking necessary directions of liquidation or the Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, this Tribunal vide its Order dated 21.10.2019 ordered for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and had consequently appointed this Applicant as the liquidator of the Corporate Debtor.

# 4. It is stated the public announcement in Form B under Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations,2016 was published in Business Standard Newspaper of Kochi edition on October 24, 2019, and Mangalam Daily Newspaper of Kerala edition on October 24, 2019. The said public announcement was also uploaded on the website of the IBBI. 

# 5. It is stated that per the aforesaid public announcement, the Applicant received several claims from the employees/workmen of the Corporate Debtor amongst other creditors of the Corporate Debtor. It is stated that the Applicant examined and processed all the claims received from the employees along with all other creditors by law and in clear compliance with the Code.

# 6. It is further stated that the Corporate Debtor had 6 Blocks of Assets that were available for liquidation as follows: -  . . . . 

# 7. It is stated that the sale of all blocks of assets has been completed except the sale is in process for one asset block for which a successful bid has been received in the 22nd auction held on 19.06.2024. The entire blocks of assets of the Corporate Debtor have been successfully sold by the liquidator and all that is left is to complete the registration process for the immovable properties sold via e-auction and the last block as mentioned above.

# 8. It is stated that after obtaining permission from this Tribunal, the Applicant has proceeded with the distribution of proceeds of the sale of assets, whereby the admitted claims of secured financial creditors, namely KSIDC and KFC, and of Workmen and employees have been settled in full and admitted claims of unsecured financial creditors have been settled to the extent of about 39%.

# 9. It is stated that in the process of completion of the CIRP, the Applicant has received interest from over 10 interested parties expressing their willingness to purchase the Corporate Debtor as a going concern without tangible assets. This is preliminary since the Corporate Debtor is a BSE-listed company and is considered to have value. However, the offers that were put forth for the same were vague and insubstantial ranging from 10 Lakhs to 50 Lakhs. The Applicant thereafter appointed two IBBI registered valuers to determine a realizable value for the present company.

# 10. It is further stated that the members of SCC unanimously agreed to keep the reserve price at Rs. 50 lakhs for the sale of Corporate Debtor as a going concern.

FINDINGS: -

# 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the Resolution Professional Mr. Akhil Suresh, and perused the materials available on record. The crux of the status of the Corporate Debtor is that the Corporate Debtor was ordered into Liquidation vide order dated 21.10.2019, and thereafter, a substantial amount of assets of the Corporate Debtor were sold after the commencement of the Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, the same is tabulated under para 6 above.

# 12. It is observed that, the 90 days specified for sale as a going concern under Regulation 32A has already expired and that the Liquidator has already sold a few assets of the Corporate Debtor. 

# 13. On hearing the learned counsel for the Applicant and with an appreciation of the documents produced, the following issues are framed: -

• i. Is this Interlocutory Application maintainable after the expiry of 90 days of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor?

• ii. Can the residual assets of the Corporate Debtor be sold on a going concern basis under Regulation 32A of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016?

# 14. In the circumstances mentioned above, we have gone through the settled law decided by the NCLT Hyderabad Bench in SREI Equipment Finance Ltd v Viswa Infrastructures and Services Pvt Ltd, (IA No 995/2020), wherein, the bench has observed as follows:

• “3. In the present case, the Applicant could not sell the assets as going concern within 90 days from the liquidation commencement date owing to the fact that security interest from eight secured lenders were relinquished only in the month of December 2019 which is a prerequisite for selling the assets under Regulation 32 (a) to (f) of Liquidation Process Regulations. As such the Liquidator is seeking appropriate directions of this Tribunal for selling the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. 

• 5. The Hon'ble NCLAT, in the matter of Binani Industries Limited Vs. Bank of Baroda & Anr., clarified the objectives of the Code as under: "The first order objective is "resolution". The second order objective is "maximisation of value of assets of the 'Corporate Debtor" and the third order objective is "promoting entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balancing the interests".

• 6. The object of the Code is not for liquidation but for resolution. In the instant case, Section 60(5)(c) empowers the Adjudicating Authority to grant necessary reliefs even during liquidation.

15. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the instant case along with Regulation 32 read with 32A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 it is clear that the Liquidator should have made all such endeavours to first sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor under Regulation 32(e) or (f) as such exclusively only at the first auction. However, perusing the instant application, it is seen that the Liquidator has sold a few properties and is now pursuing the present application for sale as a going concern. The case above law is persuasive because those are from a similar bench of the National Company Law Tribunal and hence, the same is not binding on this Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this application is maintainable.

16. Issue no. ii: - To answer this issue we look at the meaning of the word going concern under IBC. We find that the word going concern is not defined in IBC/ the Liquidation Regulations. However we rely on the Note of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India according to one round table of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India held with stakeholders on 21.05.2018, wherein the word going concern is described as

• “Going Concern means all the assets, tangibles or intangibles and resources needed to continue to operate independently a business activity which may be whole or a part of the business of the corporate debtor without values being assigned to the individual asset or resource.”

17. On perusal of the above and further reliance placed on Regulations 2 and 32A of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, the present  Corporate Debtor, bereft of assets and dismissed of employees, would not serve the interest of the Corporate Debtor to be sold as a

going concern.

# 18. The sale as a going concern provided in extant regulation means that the Corporate Debtor could be put into operation with all the essential resources available for it to carry on the business activity. Accounting Standard 1 clarifies 

• “The enterprise is normally viewed as a going concern that is as continuing operation for the foreseeable future. It is assumed that the enterprise has neither the intention nor the necessity of liquidating or curtailing materially the scale of the operation”. 

In the instant case, the Corporate Debtor is under liquidation proceedings and all the key assets of the business has been sold already. The nothing left for the Corporate Debtor to carry out the business and selling the skeleton of the Corporate Debtor. Being a listed entity would lead to misuse of the Corporate Debtor and therefore the appropriate cause of action will thus be auctioning the sale of the asset on an individual basis and subsequently dissolution. Therefore, we are of the view that this application IA(IBC)/307/KOB/2024 is to be dismissed.

# 19. Let the certified copy of the order be issued upon compliance with requisite formalities.

# 20. File be consigned to records.

---------------------------------------------

M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering and Construction Private Limited Vs. The State of Bihar - Once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation,

 HC Patna (2024.08.01) in M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering and Construction Private Limited Vs. The State of Bihar  [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13042 of 2022 ] held that; 

• Once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation,

• After such assessment, the respondent authority has to submit its claims (concerning customs dues/operational debt) in terms of the procedure laid down, in strict compliance of the time periods prescribed under the IBC, before the adjudicating authority.

• On the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Liquidator should be noticed and participated in the re-assessment proceedings. Only for violation of principles of natural justice, we set aside the Annexure-C order without going into the merits of the matter.

Excerpts of the Order;

The writ petition is filed by an assessee which is under liquidation by orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (for brevity ‘NCLT’) Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. The Liquidator who represents the assessee has been appointed as per Annexure-2 order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the NCLT. The Liquidator representing the assessee has come before this Court with the writ petition challenging the re-assessment for the year 2012-2013; translated copy of which order is produced as Annexure-C along with the counter affidavit of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 

# 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Liquidator was never issued with notice of re-assessment and could not participate in the re-assessment. There are also claims of refund which are being prosecuted for the years 2013- 2014 to 2015-2016 before the appropriate authority. In such circumstance, there should be a proper assessment proceeding taken with the participation of the petitioner. It is also pointed out from Section 33 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity ‘IBC’) that when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be initiated instituted by or against a corporate debtor. Reference is also made to ABG Shipyard Liquidator v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, (2023) 1 SCC 472, wherein it has been categorically stated that though the Taxes Department would be entitled to make an assessment or determine the quantum of duty, there could be no recovery made; for which the Liquidator will have to be approached with a proper claim after the assessment is finalised. 

# 3. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the order itself indicates that notices were sent on e-mail and even the Advocate who was prosecuting the refund application before the Tax Authorities was given notice, who had informed the respondents that the company is in liquidation. It is also pointed out from the judgment in ABG Shipyard Liquidator (supra) that the clear direction is that only when there is a moratorium under Section 14, there could be a stay of recovery. Since the liquidation has commenced, there is no further moratorium, is the contention. 

# 4. With respect to the claim for recovery we have to only look at the operative portion of ABG Shipyard Liquidator (supra) and we extract from Paragraph No. 57: 

• 57. On the basis of the above discussions, following are our conclusions: 

• 57.1. Once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act. 

• 57.2. After such assessment, the respondent authority has to submit its claims (concerning customs dues/operational debt) in terms of the procedure laid down, in strict compliance of the time periods prescribed under the IBC, before the adjudicating authority. 

• 57.3. In any case, the IRP/RP/liquidator can immediately secure goods from the respondent authority to be dealt with appropriately, in terms of the IBC. 

# 5. It has been categorically stated that the moratorium spoken of under the IBC is either as per the terms of Section 14 or Section 33(5) and that in such circumstance there can be no recovery made though the authorities would be entitled to assess or determine the quantum of duties or taxes. 

# 6. In the present case, admittedly, in the case of the assessee the liquidation proceedings had commenced by Annexure-2 order dated 06.02.2020 and the Liquidator was appointed. As we saw from Annexure-C, the notices were all issued to the e-mail of the assessee after the Liquidator was appointed which makes it clear that the Liquidator was never informed of the re-assessment proceedings. In such circumstances, Annexure-C suffers from the defect of the assessee having not been heard. 

# 7. In the present case, initially the State had also objected to the filing of the writ petition, which was without getting an approval from the NCLT. When the objection was raised, the Liquidator had approached the NCLT for ex post facto approval which was denied. An appeal to the National Company Appellate Tribunal, however, found favour with the contention and declared the writ petition filed to be one with proper approval as granted by the Appellate Tribunal. 

8. On the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Liquidator should be noticed and participated in the re-assessment proceedings. Only for violation of principles of natural justice, we set aside the Annexure-C order without going into the merits of the matter. The Liquidator shall appear before the Assessing Officer on 21.08.2024 after filing proper objections. The assessment order at Annexure-C itself shall be considered as a notice for re-assessment. After filing the objection, the Assessing Officer shall hear the matter on the same day or any other date with intimation to the Liquidator, who is representing the assessee. The matter shall be considered on merits and an assessment order passed, which again has to be enforced only by filing a proper claim before the Liquidator and going by the decision in ABG Shipyard Liquidator (supra). Necessarily the demand notice with respect to Annexure C assessment order for 2012-2013 would stand quashed. As far as the refund for the years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, we are not called upon to consider the issue at all. 

9. We hence allow the writ petition with the above directions. 

---------------------------------------------

Rahul Nareshbhai Shah Liquidator of Male Square Retails Pvt Ltd .- No assets are left with for any further disposal. Since the assets of the Corporate Debtor are completely liquidated, there remains nothing and no applications are pending in the matter.

 NCLT Ahd-1  (2015,07.05) in Rahul Nareshbhai Shah Liquidator of Male Square Retails Pvt Ltd . IA/383(AHM)2023 in CP(IB) 39 of 2020 ] held that; 

• The applicant/Liquidator submitted that he has conducted and completed the liquidation process of corporate debtor and has disposed of assets of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Male Square Retail Private Limited. It is further stated that as all the assets of corporate debtor are liquidated and there being no other assets to be utilized for recovery of dues of the creditors/stakeholders,

• No assets are left with for any further disposal. Since the assets of the Corporate Debtor are completely liquidated, there remains nothing and no applications are pending in the matter.

Excerpts of the Order;

1. The present application being I.A. No.383 of 2023 in CP(IB): 39/9/NCLT/AHM/2020 has been filed by Mr. Rahul N. Shah, Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Male Square Retail Pvt. Ltd., under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for an order of dissolution by seeking relief as follows:- 

• “a. Your Lordship may be pleased to allow the present application. 

• b. Your Lordship may be pleased to pass an order under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 14 and 45(3)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation 2016 seeking for the dissolution of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Male Square Retail Private Limited; 

• c. Your Lordship may be pleased to grant any other relief as may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 

# 2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant/ liquidator is as follows: 

(i) It is stated that the present application is filed under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 14 and 45(3)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation 2016 seeking for the Dissolution of the Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s Male Square Retail Private Limited. It is further submitted. that the Final Report dated 29.03.2023 along with Form-H in compliance of Regulation 45 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 is annexed herewith and marked as "ANNEXURE-A (COLLY)" to the present application.

(ii) It is submitted that, M/s. Male Square Retail Private Limited was incorporated on 18/06/2013 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, bearing CIN No. U51909GJ2013PTC075668 and having its registered office situated at 339,3d Fl. Block-F, TPS14, Sumel Business Park - 6, Nr. Dudheshwar Circle, Dudheshwar Ahmedabad Gujarat 380004.

(iii) As stated, the Operational Creditor Mr. Hardik Fakirchand Shah Prop. of Cotton Hub had preferred and filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against the Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s. Male Square Retail Private Limited. 

(iv) It is stated that this Bench vide its order dated 27.04.2022 passed in CP (IB) No. 39/9/NCLT/AHM/2020 had admitted the application filed under Section 9 of the Code and initiated the CIRP of Corporate Debtor. Further in the same order this Bench appointed Mr. Rahul Nareshbhai Shah, as the Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP") of the Corporate Debtor. A copy of Admission Order dated 27.04.2022 is annexed at Annexure-A to the Final Report dated 29.03.2023 attached at Annexure-A of the present application. 

(v) It is submitted that there were no assets excepts loans and advances of the Corporate Debtor, the members of CoC in its Third Meeting dated 16.08.2022 resolved to initiate liquidation process of Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, an interlocutory application bearing IA No. 731 of 2022 in CP (IB) No. 39 of 2020 came to be preferred by the applicant seeking for liquidation of Corporate Debtor. The applicant submits that this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2022 passed an order of liquidation and further appointed applicant herein as liquidator of corporate debtor. A copy of Liquidation Order bearing IA No. 731 of 2022 in CP. 1st Progress Report IB No. 39 of 2020 dated 01.11.2022 is annexed at Annexure- B to the Final Report dated 29.03.2023 attached at as Annexure-A of the present application. 

(vi) It is submitted that, subsequently the Liquidator made the public announcement in the prescribed "Form B" as required under the Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 in English & Gujarati Newspaper i.e. "Financial Express" on 07.12.2022 and invited the claims from all the stakeholders of Corporate Debtor. A copy of public announcement in Form-B dated 07.12.2022 is annexed at Annexure-C to the Final Report dated 29.03.2023 attached at Annexure-A of the instant application. 

(vii) It is stated that the applicant/liquidator, in accordance with Regulation 15 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 prepared for the period 01.11.2022 to 31.12.2022 and submitted before this Bench on 12.01.2023. A copy of First Progress Report is annexed here and marked at Annexure-D to the Final Report dated 29.03.2023 attached at Annexure-A of the present application. 

(viii) It is stated that the applicant/ liquidator, in compliance of Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, prepared a Preliminary report along with Asset Memorandum and List of stakeholders and the same was filed with the registry of this Bench on 02.01.2023. The given details of the stakeholders are as under:

Sr. No.	Name of the Creditor	Amount Admitted (in Rs.)
	Mr. Shrenik Shah, Prop. Of Rajendra Mobile (Financial Creditor)	4,00,000/-
	Assistant State Tax Officer State Tax Department, Ahmedabad (Operational Creditor)	1,67,63,243/-
	Cotton Hub	24,42,730/-

A Copy of Preliminary Report along with Asset Memorandum and List of Stake holder is attached at Annexure- E of the Final Report dated 29.03.2023 of the present application. 

(ix) It is stated that, in accordance with Regulation 41 of the Liquidation Regulation, the applicant/Liquidator opened a new bank account in the name of Corporate Debtor 'in Liquidation', with Canara Bank on 01.07.2022, the Bank details are submitted as under:- 

Name of the Account	Male Square Retail Private Limited (In Liquidator)
Branch	Navrangpura, Ahmedabad
A/c. No	120001284012
IFSC Code	CNRB0000280

(x) It is stated that the applicant/Liquidator further submitted Preliminary Report within 75 days and an Asset Memorandum in accordance with Regulation 34 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 to this Tribunal on 04.01.2023. The copy of Preliminary Report, Assets Memorandum and List of Stakeholders are annexed at Annexure-E of the Final Report dated 29.03.2023 attached at Annexure-A of the present application. 

(xi) The Applicant/Liquidator submitted that in accordance with Regulation 15 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 has prepared 2nd Progress Report for the period 01.01.2023 to 28.03.2023 was submitted before this Tribunal on 12.01.2023. A copy of Second Progress Report is annexed here and marked at Annexure-F to the Final Report dated 29.03.2023 attached as Annexure-A of the present application. 

(xii) The applicant/Liquidator submitted that he has conducted and completed the liquidation process of corporate debtor and has disposed of assets of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Male Square Retail Private Limited. It is further stated that as all the assets of corporate debtor are liquidated and there being no other assets to be utilized for recovery of dues of the creditors/stakeholders, the applicant conducted meeting of Stakeholders Consultation Committee on 11.11.2022 and 24.03.2023 wherein the Stakeholder Consultation Committee resolved for dissolution of corporate debtor company. A copy of the Minutes of the Minutes of the respective Meeting dated 11.11.2022 and 24.03.2023 is annexed as ANNEXURE G and ANNEXURE H to the Final Report dated 29.03.2023 attached at ANNEXURE A of the present application. 

# 3. The List of claims from the financial creditors received were submitted in the Final Report as under: 

# 4. The List of claims from Operational Creditors is also submitted as under: 5. This Bench, vide its order dated the applicant/ Liquidator further submitted the affidavit in compliance of this Bench’s order dated 12.01.2024. 

# 6. The Applicant/Liquidator submitted a tabulated representation of the realisation of the assets/sales as under. As submitted table shows, there was no asset or no amount recovered from the Corporate Debtor. 

# 7. The applicant/Liquidator submitted a tabulated representation of the distribution of proceeds as under:.

# 8. A perusal of the above table reveals that out of the total claimed amount of Rs.2,00,81,867/-, an amount of Rs.1,98,37,867/- was admitted, against which, total realisation was NIL. To meet the CIRP and Liquidation cost, one of the SCC member contributed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, leaving a NIL balance. 

# 9. The Applicant/Liquidator, in compliance of our order dated 08.05.2024, filed an affidavit vide inward diary no.D-4711 dated 18.06.2024, produced a copy of certificate of closure of the bank account issued by the Canara Bank and stated that the account was closed on 17.05.2024. The balance sheet produced by the Canara Bank shows that on 17.05.2024, there was a NIL Balance. 

# 10. We heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and perused the material available on record. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out Section 54 of the IBC, 2016 provides as follows:- 

• Section 54: “(1) Where the assets of the corporate debtor have been completely liquidated, the liquidator shall make an application to the Adjudicating Authority for the dissolution of such corporate debtor. 

• (2) The Adjudicating Authority shall on application filed by the liquidator under sub-section (1) order that the corporate debtor shall be dissolved from the date of that order and the corporate debtor shall be dissolved accordingly.

• (3) A copy of an order under sub-section (2) shall within seven days from the date of such order, be forwarded to the authority with which the corporate debtor is registered.” 

# 11. From the averments made in the Application along with the perusal of the final report and the Compliance Certificate filed in Form-H by the Applicant, it is seen that the Corporate Debtor has been completely liquidated. No assets are left with for any further disposal. Since the assets of the Corporate Debtor are completely liquidated, there remains nothing and no applications are pending in the matter. In the circumstances, as averred and as prayed for by the Applicant that an order for dissolution is to be passed by this Tribunal under Section 54(1) of the Code. 

# 12. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 54(1) of IBC, 2016, we pass the following order:-. 

• i) The Adjudicating Authority in exercise of powers conferred to it under Section 54(2) of the IBC, 2016 orders that the Corporate Person (Applicant Company) viz., M/s. Male Square Retail Pv.t Ltd. having CIN No. U51909GJ2013PTC075668 stands dissolved from the date of this order. 

• ii) The Registry of this Bench and the Applicant/liquidator is directed to serve a copy of this order to the RoC concerned, Income Tax Department and also to the IBBI within seven days from this order for information and necessary action. 

• iii) The Applicant/Liquidator shall preserve physical or electronic copy of the reports, registers, and books of account referred to in Regulations 45A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 for at least eight years after the dissolution of the Corporate Debtor, either with himself or with an information utility.. 

• iv) Consequently, the Applicant/liquidator Mr. Rahul Nareshbhai Shah is hereby discharged from his duties and responsibilities as the liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. 13. In terms of the above, IA No.383 of 2023 in CP (IB) No. 39/AHM/2020 is allowed and stands disposed of. 

---------------------------------------------