Wednesday, 5 July 2023

Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Liquidator Shamken Spinners Ltd. Vs. Sujeet Motors (P) Ltd. - AA permitted certain reliefs & concessions in “Sale as a going Concern” during the liquidation process.

NCLT Allahabad (01.06.2023) In Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Liquidator Shamken Spinners Ltd. Vs. Sujeet Motors (P) Ltd. [IA No.178/2022 in CP (IB) NO.131/ALD/2017] permitted certain reliefs & concessions in “Sale as a going Concern” during the liquidation process.

Excerpts of the Order;

ORDER IA NO.178 OF 2022 

# 1. This order will decide the IA No.178/2022. The Applicant herein is the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor for implementing the sale under the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. 


# 2. On a Petition under Section 7 filed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) by Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited, the Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s Shamken Spinners Limited was put under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by an order dated 29.05.2018 of this Bench and Mr. Anshul Gupta was appointed as IRP, who was later on confirmed as RP. 


# 3. It is further submitted that subsequently in the 11th CoC meeting held on 18.02.2019, the CoC members deliberated that despite giving numerous opportunities, the resolution applicants have failed to provide complied plan, and thus, the CoC members had unanimously rejected the Resolution Plan with a vote share of 71.44% and further resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor. It was further resolved to appoint Mr. Sanjay Gupta as a Liquidator (Applicant herein) of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, in the absence of a Resolution Plan, this Bench on 26.10.2021 passed an order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section 33 of the Code. In pursuance of the said order, public announcement in Form B had been made by the Applicant/ Liquidator in terms of Regulation 12 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 regarding the commencement of liquidation process, which was published in two daily newspapers widely circulated in Uttar Pradesh, one in Hindi ‘Jansatta’ and another in English ‘Financial Express’ on 13.11.2022. 


# 4. It is also stated that this Tribunal in the liquidation order directed the Applicant/ Liquidator to first transfer the Corporate Debtor by Scheme of Compromise or Arrangement prescribed U/s 230 of Companies Act, 2013 and thereafter, sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The relevant para of the said liquidation order dated 26.10.2021 is as under

  • :- “iv. The Liquidator shall first try to transfer the Corporate Debtor by compromise or arrangement in terms of Regulation 2B of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 thereafter the liquidator shall try to sale the Corporate Debtor as a going concern in terms of Regulation 32A read with Regulation 32(e) or 32(f) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The Liquidator to conduct the process of liquidation in the manner laid down in Chapter III of Part-II of the Code subject to direction given in Clause iv of this order.” 


# 5. It is further submitted that thereafter the Liquidator published Expression of Interest (EOI) in Financial Express and Jansatta (All India Edition) on 11.12.2021 and the last date for submission of EOI was 30.12.2021. As a result thereof, EOIs were received from three proposers namely, Vijayant Mittal, Corporate Consultants and Kundan Group, but despite their interests, none of the proposers have submitted the Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement. 


# 6. It is also submitted that in the meantime, the Applicant/ Liquidator had constituted the Stakeholder Consultation Committee (SCC) and in consultation with the same, during the meeting dated 22.02.2022, agreed to group the assets and liabilities of the Corporate Debtor and fixed the reserved price for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. 


# 7. The Liquidator invited bids for the sale of the assets of the Corporate Debtor as a ‘going concern’ by an E-auction process. The Liquidator published sale notice dated 03.03.2022 for e-auction in two local newspapers i.e., Financial Express ‘English’ all India Edition on 04.03.2022, and on 05.03.2022 in Jansatta ‘Hindi’ having circulation in Delhi NCR and Mathura, on “AS IS WHERE IS”, “AS IS WHAT IS”, “WHATEVER THERE IS” and “WITHOUT RECOURSE BASIS”. 


# 8. The E-auction process states that the sale of the Company is proposed to be done on “as is where is”, “as is what is”, “whatever there is” and “without recourse basis”. Further, the commencement of E-auction was 31.03.2022 and the last date for submission of bids was 29.03.2022 from 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM. 


# 9. Key highlights of the assets of the sale process as mentioned in the E-auction process information document is as under :- Asset Description Block Reserve Price (in Rs.) EMD Amount (in Rs.) Incremental Value (in Rs.) (Complete plant on Going Concern Basis) Land (Freehold Land admeasuring – 17.32 Acres) along with Building (Constructed Area- 33,090 Sq. Mtr.) and plant and machinery situated at 94 km Stone, Delhi – Mathura Road, Village Kotwan, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. A 22 Crores 2.20 Crores 5 Lakhs 


# 10. In pursuance of E-auction conducted on 31.03.2022, the applicant had received EMDs from 15 Bidders and the highest bid of Rs.41.05 Crores was received from the Successful Bidder-M/s Sujeet Motors (P) Limited for all the assets of the Corporate Debtor sold on a going concern basis, and accordingly, the 14 EMDs received from the Bidders were returned back between 01.04.2022 and 10.04.2022. Thereafter, the Letter of Intent ‘LOI’ dated 02.04.2022 was issued by the Applicant to M/s Sujeet Motors (P) Limited on 06.04.2022, which was accepted and acknowledged by the Successful Bidder on 07.04.2022. 


# 11. Further, in pursuance to the issuance of LOI, the 1st installment of Rs.8,21,00,000/- i.e. 20% of the final bid amount was received on 13.04.2022 by the Applicant from M/s Sujeet Motors (P) Limited, which was being in accordance with the terms and condition of E-auction document, and the remaining amount of Rs.30,64,00,000/- along with applicable taxes as determined by the Applicant/ Liquidator is required to be paid by M/s Sujeet Motors (P) Limited within 30 days, post approval of this sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern by this Tribunal. It is further submitted that in accordance with the para 1(12) of Schedule I of the Liquidation Process Regulations, the payments made after 30 days from the final approval of the order by this Tribunal, interest @ 12% p.a. shall be payable on the balance sale consideration for the period after 30th day till the final payment. 


# 12. It is submitted that the balance payment by the Successful Bidder after receipt of 1st installment to be paid after final approval of this Tribunal as per the terms of E-auction document, which is as under :- S.NO. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Complete Plant on Going Concern basis (Freehold Land admeasuring – 17.32 Acres) along with Building (Constructed Area-33,090 Sq. Mtr.) and plant and machinery situated at 94 km Stone, Delhi – Mathura Road, Village Kotwan, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh Rs.41,05,00,000/- Less – EMD deposited Rs.2,20,00,000/- Less – Amount to be received as 1st installment Rs.8,21,00,000/- Grand Total Rs.30,64,00,000/- 


# 13. The successful bidder has paid 1st installment of the sale consideration for the CD and after full payment of the sale consideration by the successful auction purchaser, the next step would be, to transfer the corporate entity of the CD to the successful auction purchaser by issuing shares to them. At the same time, as per the provisions of Sec. 53 of IBC, all remaining debts and dues from the CD will be cleared, and there will be no further liability for the CD to be paid by the successful auction purchaser. The applicant is seeking approval from this Hon’ble Tribunal through this IA for implementation of sale under the liquidation of Corporate Debtor as a going concern to the Successful Bidder. 


# 14. The Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: 

i. A direction be issued that the payment of the entire liquidation sale amount of Rs.41,05,00,000/- (Rupees Forty One Crore and Five Lakh Only) Crores is to be done by the Successful Bidder to the Applicant within 30 days of the approval of Sale of the Corporate Debtor as going concern by this Hon'ble Tribunal and the same to be in accordance with Paragraph 1(12) of Schedule I of the Liquidation Process Regulations. Further upon payment of the entire Liquidation Sale Amount by the Successful Bidder, hereinafter to be referred to as “Effective Date, and on the Effective Date all rights, title and interest in whole and every part of the Corporate Debtor including but not limited to intellectual property rights, free from security interest, encumbrance, claim, counter claim or any demur belong in g to Corporate Debtor shall continue to vest in the Corporate Debtor. 

ii. A direction be issued that upon the Effective Date all rights and entitlements of claims or demands made by or liabilities or obligations owed or payable to the Financial Creditors, Operational Creditors, Employees, Workmen including claims related to their social security contributions, suppliers, Governmental Agencies, tax authorities including GST, income-tax liabilities, VAT liabilities, excise liabilities, service tax liabilities , withholding tax liabilities etc., including any interest, fines, penalties, fees, cess, surcharge or similar assessments payable, etc. whether filed /admitted/ verified or not, due or contingent, asserted or unasserted, crystallized or uncrystallized, known or unknown, contract, judicial/ quasi-judicial proceedings, disputed or undisputed, present or future, including any liability arising out of non-compliance of provision of any laws, rules, regulations, directions, notifications, circulars, guidelines, policies, licenses, approvals, consents or permissions as applicable on the Corporate Debtor, or reports as applicable on the Corporate Debtor, for the period upto the Effective Date, shall stand permanently and fully satisfied for the Corporate Debtor acquired by the Successful Bidder, and shall be handled/ extinguished by the Liquidator in accordance with section 53 of IBC 2016. Further, the Successful Bidder and /or the Corporate Debtor shall at no point of time, directly or indirectly, have any other obligation, liability or duty (whether financial, contractual, performance or otherwise) in relation thereto. 

iii. A direction be issued that all the subsisting consents, licenses, approvals, rights, entitlements, benefits and privileges whether under law, contracts, leases, granted in favour of Corporate Debtor or to which the corporate debtor is entitled to, shall, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in their terms irrespective of the commencement of insolvency/ liquidation process shall under the Code, in relation to the Corporate Debtor be deemed to continue without disruption, for benefit of the Corporate Debtor and additional licenses, registrations and consent required by the Corporate Debtor, if any, be made available immediately. A direction be issued that any non-compliance or any liability (current or prospective) towards any non-compliance of provisions of any law, rules, regulations, directions, notifications, circulars, guidelines, policies, licenses, approvals, consent or permissions (including with respect to taxes) for the period up to the Effective Date shall stand satisfied and no claim, liability, pecuniary or otherwise shall be prescribed in relation to any such Non Compliances and they shall deemed to be extinguished. 

iv. A direction be issued that the Corporate Debtor shall have a right to review and terminate any contract that was entered into prior to the commencement of corporate insolvency resolution process. 

v. A direction be issued that all inquiries, investigation and Proceedings (including in relation to or on account of Tax), whether civil or criminal, suits, claims, disputes, interests and damages in connection with the Corporate Debtor or the affairs of the Corporate Debtor (other than against the Erstwhile Promoters or former members of the management of the Corporate Debtor), pending or threatened, present or future in relation to discharged and terminated. 

vi. A direction be issued that on the Effective Date, all inquiries, investigation and proceedings (including in relation to or on account of Tax), whether civil or criminal, suits, claims, disputes, interests and damages in connection with the Corporate Debtor or the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, whether civil or criminal, suits, claims, disputes, interests and damages in connection with the Corporate Debtor or the affairs of the Corporate Debtor pending or threatened, present or future in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date or arising on account of sale of Corporate Debtor under liquidation as going concern, shall stand discharged and terminated.

vii. A direction be issued that the promoter and nonpublic shareholding and public shareholding in the Corporate Debtor shall be extinguished without any consideration, and rights and liabilities arising out of the same shall also be extinguished. 

viii. A direction be issued that on and from the Effective Date, the status of the corporate debtor in the records of the Registrar of Companies be reflected as ‘active’ from the status of ‘liquidation’. 

ix. A direction be issued that on and from the Effective Date, the board of directors of the Corporate Debtor be reconstituted by removing the board of directors as existing on the Effective Date and appointing the new board nominated by the Successful Bidder, subject to affidavit and undertaking that the new board of directors are not disqualified under section 29A. 

x. A direction be is sued that the Successful Bidder is at liberty to determine its acquisition structure and infusion of “Liquidation Sale Amount” be done by the Successful Bidder or any of its nominees subject to compliance with Section 29A of the Code by way of issuance of Securities or any other instrument or by way of grant of loan. 

xi. A direction be issued that the Liquidator be empowered and permitted to issue equity shares, of the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Successful Bidder or any of its nominees subject to compliance with Section 29A of the Code in lieu of the “Liquidation Sale Amount” received from the Successful Bidder or any of its nominees towards the “Liquidation Sale Amount” in a manner as informed to the Liquidator by the Successful Bidder. 

xii. A direction be issued that on or after the Effective Date in lieu of the balance “Liquidation Sale Amount” paid by the Successful Bidder, the newly appointed Board of Directors be permitted to approve the infusion be done by Successful Bidder or any of its nominees by way of issuance of Securities or any other instrument or by way of grant of loan without the requirement of any further approvals on such terms and conditions as approved by the newly constituted board of directors of the Corporate Debtor. 

xiii. A direction be issued that as the sale of Corporate Debtor as Going Concern is akin to implementation of resolution plan under the corporate insolvency resolution process all attendant benefits, privileges and exemptions under various laws, including under the taxation law, shall be applicable to the Corporate Debtor upon sale to the Successful Bidder, including but not limited to benefit of any tax holiday, exemption, deduction, carry forward of losses of any prior years and set- off against the income of any financial year as available to the Corporate Debtor, even in an eventuality where the Corporate Debtor does not remain listed in future, more so in view of compliance of provisions of Section 79(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which apply mutatis mutandis to sale of the corporate debtor under going concern under liquidation. 

xiv. A direction be issued that the Corporate Debtor and the Successful Bidder shall be granted an exemption from all Taxes, levies, surcharges, cess, fees, transfer charges, stamp duty, registration charges, transfer premiums, and surcharges that arise from or relate to implementation of Sale of Corporate Debtor as a going concern under Liquidation. 

xv. A direction be issued that Liquidator and Respondent shall be at liberty to take all the steps required to make accounting entries for the smooth transmission and clearing the balance sheet. 

xvi. That necessary exemption be provided to the Corporate Debtor from adding the words “and reduced” in its name, as required under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. 

xvii. All claims of the Corporate Debtor against third parties and its related parties shall remain outstanding, due and recoverable in accordance with their respective terms. Further, the Corporate Debtor shall be the sole beneficiary of any amount recovered by the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor/ Successful Bidder shall have full right to recover/ proceed against the party, whose account is recoverable in the books of Corporate Debtor as on the Effective Date and it shall be the sole beneficiary of the amount so recovered, except those assets which are specifically not included by the Liquidator in the Sale Notice and e-Auction Process Document. 

xviii. A direction be issued to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and Registrar of Companies, Ahmedabad (ROC) that the charges registered with them in respect of encumbrances over the assets of the Corporate Debtor shall be satisfied upon the completion of the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, and that the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal shall be sufficient proof for the Successful Bidder to satisfy the charge on secured assets with records of MCA, ROC and other statutory and regulatory authorities upon completion of sale and issuance of the Sale Certificate. 

xix. The Liquidator shall continue to hold the bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank, “Shamken Spinners Limited in Liquidation” and fixed deposits pertaining to the amount received as sale consideration from the Successful Bidder, till the closure of the Liquidation Process in terms of Regulation 45(3)(a) of the Liquidation Process Regulations. Further, the Applicant/ Liquidator is empowered to issue directions to the banks to change the operating signatories, bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor on or after Effective Date, other than the Liquidation Bank Account held by the Liquidator, for smooth transition of the corporate debtor to the successful bidder. 

xx. Direct that the Corporate Debtor and/or the Successful Bidder shall be at liberty to seek remedy if any available before the Hon'ble Tribunal to address any difficulties faced with respect to implementation of the acquisition of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. 


# 15. Regulation 32 of the Liquidation Process Regulations provides for the realization of assets and the same is extracted below: “[Sale of Assets, etc. The Liquidator may sell a) an asset on a standalone basis; b) the assets in a slump sale; c) a set of assets collectively; d) the assets in parcels; e) the corporate debtor as a going concern; or f) the business(s) of the corporate debtor as a going concern: Provided that where an asset is subject to security interest, it shall not be sold under any of the clauses (a) to (f) unless the security interest therein has been relinquished to the liquidation estate.]” 


# 16. While the Liquidation Process Regulations recognizes going concern sale as one of the methods of sale, however, there is no definition as such for ‘going concern’ either in the Code or in the Regulations. 


# 17. It is beneficial to refer the report of the Insolvency Law Committee dated 26/03/2018 (Para 8.1 of the Report), wherein the committee examined the term “going concern” as below: “The phrase ‘as a going concern’ imply that the Corporate Debtor would be functional as it would have been prior to the initiation of CIRP, other than the restrictions put by the Code.” 


# 18. It is beneficial to refer Para Nos. 7 & 8 of the Round Table of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India held with the stakeholders on 21/05/2018, referring to the case of Gujarat NRE1, wherein a note was published by IBBI defining “going concern” as below: 

  • “7. ‘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.” 

  • In view of this, the following options are submitted for consideration

  • a. The corporate debtor may be sold as a going concern, as provided in the extant regulations. As the Company survives, there will be no need for dissolution of the Company in terms of section 54 of the Code. The assets along with all attendant claims, limitations, licenses, permits or business authorizations remain in the Company. The Company survives as it was; the ownership of the Company is transferred by the Liquidator to the acquirer. The Liquidator shall make an application to the AA for approval of the sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern and the AA may pass an order with respect to:

  • (a)Sale of the corporate debtor to the intended buyer as a going concern 

  • (b)Transfer of shares of the corporate debtor to the intended buyer (c) Transfer of the going concern of the corporate debtor to the buyers 

  • (d)Continuation of the authority, powers and obligations of the Liquidator to complete the liquidation process as provided under the Code and the regulations including the control, operations and continuation of the liquidation bank account of the corporate debtor, 

  • (e) Payment to stakeholders in accordance with section 53 from the liquidation bank account, and 

  • (f) Protection of the intended buyer from all claims and liabilities pertaining to the period prior to the sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern. 

  • In such a case, the final report of Liquidator, as required under clause (3) of regulation 45, shall form part of the application for the closure of the liquidation process of the corporate debtor and not for the dissolution of the corporate debtor to the AA to be made under section 54. 

  • b. The regulations may provide another option of sale, that is, sale of business of the corporate debtor as a going concern. It will be only sale of business, not the corporate debtor which will be liquidated in accordance with the regulations. In this case, the assets and liabilities relevant for the business are transferred to a new entity, and stakeholders are paid from proceeds of sale in accordance with section 53 and the corporate debtor will be dissolved.” 

  • 8. Both the options require consent of the secured creditors to relinquish security interest. If security interest is not relinquished, other modes of sale will be used.” 


# 19. One advantage of the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a ‘going concern’ is that the Corporate Debtor is retained, it will not be dissolved and the Corporate Debtor will be transferred along with the assets. So, the Corporate Debtor as a legal entity remains as such. 


# 20. The crux of the ‘sale as a going concern’ is that the equity shareholding of the Corporate Debtor is extinguished and the acquirer takes over the undertaking with the assets, licenses, entitlements etc. The undertaking includes the business of the Corporate Debtor, assets, properties and rights etc. excluding the liabilities. 


# 21. The Corporate Debtor survives, only the ownership is transferred by the Liquidator to the purchaser. All the rights, titles and interest in the Corporate Debtor including the legal entity is transferred to the purchaser. After the sale as a ‘going concern’, the purchaser will be carrying on the business of the Corporate Debtor. 


# 22. In the normal parlance “going concern” sale is transfer of assets along with the liabilities. However, as far as the ‘going concern’ sale in liquidation is concerned, there is a clear difference that only assets are transferred and the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor has to be settled in accordance with Section 53 of the Code, hence the purchaser of this assets takes over the assets without any encumbrance or charge and free from the action of the Creditors. 


# 23. This Bench feels that following are the advantages of selling the Corporate Debtor “as a going concern”: a. The entity i.e., the Corporate Debtor itself gets transferred; b. The equity shareholding gets transferred or extinguished and new shares are issued; c. The purchaser is expected to carry on the business of the Corporate Debtor after the sale of assets is confirmed; d. The existing employees will have a chance to continue in their employment. 


# 24. The decision to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern is taken by the Liquidator himself or in consultation with the Creditors / stakeholders and the proceeds from the sale of assets are going to be utilized for distribution to the Creditors in the manner specified under Section 53 of the Code. Hence all the Creditors of the Corporate Debtor get discharged and the assets are transferred free of any encumbrances. The legal entity of the Corporate Debtor however survives. 


# 25. In the case of sale as a ‘going concern’ the Corporate Debtor will not be dissolved in terms of Section 54 of the Code. The assets with the attendant, claims, limitations, licenses, permits or business authorizations, remains in the Company. Only the ownership of the Company is acquired by the successful bidder from the Liquidator. 


3 26. It is to be noted that even though there is no specific provision in the Code regarding “sale of the Company as a going concern”, IBBI has formed the Liquidation Process Regulations, under the Code and we have to take them as guiding principles in dealing with the case. 


# 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited V/s Satish Kumar Gupta and Others (MANU/SC/1123/2018) has referred to Regulation 32 of the Liquidation Process Regulations which states that the Liquidator may also sell the Corporate Debtor as a ‘going concern’. Hence there is no impediment for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a ‘going concern’. 


# 28. As a consequence to the above discussions and on perusal of the pleadings and submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and having been satisfied with the need for smooth implementation of sale under liquidation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to applicant as successful auction purchaser, following order is passed keeping in view the provisions of Section 60(5) of the Code and Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016

a. The reliefs sought in prayer clauses (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), (x), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xvi) and (xviii) shall be dealt with as per the provisions of applicable laws. 

b. Prayer (i) is allowed. The payment of the entire liquidation sale amount of Rs.41,05,00,000/- be done by the Successful Bidder within 30 days. 

c. Prayer (ii) is allowed subject to clearing/ payment of all debt/ liability as per the provision of Section 53 of the Code. 

d. Prayer made in (v) is covered by the provisions of Section 32A, hence, no separate relief in response to this prayer is required to be granted. Therefore, the said provisions would ipso facto apply.

e. Prayer (viii) is allowed. The ROC concerned shall take action to change the status of the Corporate Debtor in records of the ROC from the status of “liquidation” to the status of “active”. 

f. Prayer (ix) is allowed. The Board of the Corporate Debtor can be re-constituted as indicated in prayer (ix) and necessary filings may be made to the RoC concerned. 

g. As regards the prayer (xv), the Liquidator and Applicant shall be at liberty to take all the steps required to make accounting entries for the smooth transmission and clearing the balance sheet as per the applicable accounting standards prescribed under the Companies Act, 2013. The Liquidator is directed to ensure completion of pending filings with the Registrar of Companies, Income Tax Authorities and any other Government / Statutory Authorities. 

h. As regards to prayer (xvii), since the Corporate Debtor shall be the sole beneficiary of any amount recovered by the Corporate Debtor, it shall be the responsibility also of the Corporate Debtor to pursue such recovery proceedings, if any, in accordance with law. 

i. Prayer (xix) is allowed. the Liquidator shall continue to hold the Bank a/c with Kotak Mahindra Bank, ‘Shamken Spinners Limited, in Liquidation’, pertaining to the amount received as sale consideration from the successful bidder, till the closure of the Liquidation process in terms of Regulation-45(3)(a) of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, so that sale consideration and other money, if any, received can be distributed amongst all creditors in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 53 of IBC, 2016. Further, the Liquidator is empowered to issue directions to the Bank to change the operating signatories or bank accounts of the CD for other than the Liquidation A/c held by the Liquidator, for smooth transition of the CD to the successful bidder. 

j. Prayer in (xx) is allowed as per law. 


# 29. The Liquidator is directed to provide all support and assistance to the Applicant for the smooth functioning of the Corporate Debtor to complete the acquisition. 


# 30. The Liquidator and Applicant shall be at liberty to take all the steps required to make accounting entries for the smooth transmission and clearing the balance sheet. 


# 31. The Liquidator is directed to ensure completion of pending filings with the Registrar of Companies, Income Tax Authorities and any other Government / Statutory Authorities. 


# 32. The liquidator is directed to send the certified copy of this order within 7 days from the date of pronouncement to the Registrar of Companies, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. 


# 33. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar of Companies, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur for updating the master data. 34. In terms of the above, IA No.178 of 2022 filed by the Applicant stands disposed of accordingly. 


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


Monday, 3 July 2023

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Ruben George Joseph, Liquidator, M/s. Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Regulation 21A (3) provides the consequences of non-compliance of direction provided in Regulation 21A(2)(b), accordingly on the expiry of 180 days if the secured creditor failed to realize the amount and paid to the liquidator the secured asset automatically shall vests with the liquidator as part of liquidation estate.

NCLT Kochi (23.06.2023) In The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Ruben George Joseph, Liquidator, M/s. Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd. [IA(IBC)/139/KOB/2023 in IA(IBA)/176/KOB/2022 in IBA/25/KOB/2020] held that;

  • Whether any provision where the time limit prescribed is mandatory or directory the Madras High court in Shahji Purushottam vs Union of India, observed that when there is no consequential result is prescribed it will consider as only a directory, and when there is consequential result is prescribed then the provision is mandatory.

  • Regulation 21A (3) provides the consequences of non-compliance of direction provided in Regulation 21A(2)(b), accordingly on the expiry of 180 days if the secured creditor failed to realize the amount and paid to the liquidator the secured asset automatically shall vests with the liquidator as part of liquidation estate.

  • The period mentioned in Regulation 21A(2)(b) is mandatory, hence the period of 180 days prescribed under Regulation 21A(2)(b) of IBBI (Liquidation Process)2016 cannot be extended.

Excerpts of the Order;

# 1. The present application has been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, by the Applicant who is the Secured Creditor of Corporate Debtor M/s. Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt Ltd. seeking the time extension of 180 days from 29.03.2023 for effecting the sale of secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, and remit the excess amount, over it’s admitted claim etc; 


# 2. The facts as narrated in the application and explained by the Applicant are summarized hereunder: 

  • i. The Applicant being a secured creditor opted to realize its security as provided in Section 52(l)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (for short code) and informed the Liquidator of its security interest and identified the asset subject to such security interest to be realised. The Applicant has submitted Form- D as provided under Regulation 2lA (l) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations 2016 on 28.10.2022. The Liquidator has verified the security interest and permitted the Applicant to realize its security interest which has been proved before him. The Applicant has paid the amount payable under Section 53(1)(a) & 53(1)(b)(i) to the Liquidator as it would have shared in case it had relinquished the security interest within the time allotted. 

  • ii. Thereafter on 15.11.2022 the Liquidator directed the Applicant to inform him of the Value of its Secured asset. Accordingly, the Applicant informed on 29.11.2022 the Value of its Secured asset as Rs, 15,00,00,000/-. The Liquidator on 23.12.2022, informed the Applicant that he could not find a buyer for a better price and permitted the Bank to proceed under the SARFAESI Act and the Possession of the secured Asset was surrendered to the Applicant on 27.12.2022. 

  • iii. It is stated that the fixed Reserve Price of the Secured asset being Rs 19,00,00,000/-, they issued a sale notice dated 07.01.2023 as provided under the SARFAESI Act and Enforcement of Security Interest Rules 2002 fixing the sale on 08.02.2023. There were several inquiries from various quarters and the same was known to the erstwhile Directors of the Corporate Debtor as well. One of the erstwhile Directors of the Corporate Debtor approached the Honourable High Court of Kerala challenging interalia the sale notice issued by the Applicant by filing WP(C)No. 3780/2023, contending that a Financial Creditor who has initiated CIRP under Section 7 of the code cannot opt to realise its security interest as provided under Section 52(1)(b) of the Code. The Honourable High Court admitted the Writ Petition without staying the sale to be held on 08.02.2023. However, the sale proposed to be held on 08.02.2023 could not be undertaken for want of bidders. In this circumstance, the Applicant has again notified the sale on 01.03.2023 by issuing a sale notice dated 10.02.2023 fixing the reserve Price at Rs. 17,00,00,000/-. Based on that the Writ Petition was amended by incorporating certain additional allegations to the effect that the bank has not submitted Form-D within the time allowed and hence it is not entitled to realize its security independently and moved again on 28.02.2023 and pressed for an interim order. But the Hon’ble High Court declined the Interim Order sought for as per Order dated 28.02.2023. It is further stated that the Petitioner in WP(C)No. 3780/2023 challenged Annexure A1 before the Division Bench by filing Writ Appeal No. 485/2023. The Petitioner in WP(C)No. 3870/2023 has made wide publicity regarding the pendency of the Writ Petition and that of the Writ Appeal among the prospective buyers and ultimately the sale proposed to be held on 01.03.2023 also could not be successful for want of bidders. In the circumstances, the Applicant again brought notified a sale to 17.03.2023 by issuing the sale notice dated 01.03.2023 fixing the Reserve Price at Rs.15,00,00,000/-. When the Writ Appeal came up for hearing the fact that the sale notified on 01.03.2023 could not be successful and that a new sale notification has been issued for sale on 17.03.2023 has been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court on 06.03.2023. The Appellant withdrew the Writ Appeal leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by them in the Writ Appeal and without prejudice to their right to challenge the fresh sale notice at appropriate proceedings. 

  • iv. It is stated that by amending the WP(C) No. 3780/2023 the Petitioner pressed for an interim relief to stay the sale to be held on 17.03.2023. Even though the Hon’ble High Court did not stay the sale proceedings, passed an order that if any sale is held the same shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. However, the sale slated on 17.03.2023 also could not be held due to the availability of bidders. 

  • v. It is further stated that the time limit provided under Regulation 21A(2)(b) of IBC, 2016 to remit the excess if any of the realized value of the asset over the admitted claim of the Applicant is to expire on 29.03.2023. The reason is not attributable to the Applicant as it has made all earnest efforts to realize its security interest for the maximum price to the benefit of the entire creditors. However, this is due to the tactics of the erstwhile Directors of the Corporate Debtor. Ultimately it is the time for making the remittance as provided under Regulation 2lA(2)(b) extended by this Adjudicating Authority, the asset which is subject to the security interest of the Applicant shall become part of the liquidation estate which would cause irreparable injury and prejudice to the Applicant. 


# 3. On 26.04.2023, the Respondent/Liquidator filed his reply statement and stated that the prayer is beyond the scope of the statute and hence cannot be granted, as there is no provision for an exclusion of time under the statute. Therefore, he has stated that the application is not maintainable. The Point for consideration is: 1. Whether the period of 180 days prescribed under Regulation 21A (2) (b) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) 2016 can be extended? 


# 4. The corporate debtor was ordered to liquidation by this Adjudicating Authority on 30.09. 2022.The applicant being a secured creditor opted to realize its security interest by filing form ‘D’ of Schedule II of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations 2016 and obtained the possession of immovable secured asset from the respondent liquidator on 27.12.2022. The applicant could not realize the amount as expected on or before 29.03.2023 i.e., within 180 days from the date of commencement of liquidation. Even though the applicant narrated about the pending of writ petitions filed by the erstwhile director of corporate debtor, admittedly there was no stay and applicant also thrice issued notification to auction the property but sale could not be succeeded because of want of bidders. Now the applicant filed this application for extension of time. 


# 5. The Regulations 21A (2) (b) and 21(A) 3 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) 2016 are reads as follows: 

  • b) the excess of the realized value of the asset, which is subject to security interest, over the amount of his claims admitted, to the liquidator within one hundred and eighty days from the liquidation commencement date

  • Provided that where the amount payable under this subregulation is not certain by the date the amount is payable under this sub-regulation, the secured creditor shall pay the amount, as estimated by the liquidator: 

  • Provided further that any difference between the amount payable under this sub regulation and the amount paid under the first proviso shall be made good by the secured creditor or the liquidator, as the case may be, as soon as the amount payable under this sub-regulation is certain and so informed by the liquidator. 

  • (3) Where a secured creditor fails to comply with subregulation (2), the asset, which is subject to security interest, shall become part of the liquidation estate. 


# 6. The point is whether the time limit of 180 days prescribed in Regulation 21 A (2) (b) is mandatory or directory in nature. To decide whether any provision where the time limit prescribed is mandatory or directory the Madras High court in Shahji Purushottam vs Union of India, observed that when there is no consequential result is prescribed it will consider as only a directory, and when there is consequential result is prescribed then the provision is mandatory. 


# 7. In our case the word “shall” has been used in Regulation 21A (2), apart from this Regulation 21A (3) provides the consequences of non-compliance of direction provided in Regulation 21A(2)(b), accordingly on the expiry of 180 days if the secured creditor failed to realize the amount and paid to the liquidator the secured asset automatically shall vests with the liquidator as part of liquidation estate. Here also the word “shall” have been used. In the scenario it is evident that the period mentioned in Regulation 21A(2)(b) is mandatory, hence the period of 180 days prescribed under Regulation 21A(2)(b) of IBBI (Liquidation Process)2016 cannot be extended. Thus, this point is answered. In the result the application is DISMISSED. 


# 8.The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the respective parties through email. 


# 9. Certified copy of the order be issued on request of the parties as per the procedure. 


# 10. File be consigned to records. 


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


Sunday, 2 July 2023

Pankaj Srivastava Vs. Narappa Manohar Reddy. - Provisions of Section 19 shall apply in relation to voluntary liquidation process as they apply in relation to liquidation process with the substitution of references to the liquidator for references to the interim resolution professional.

 NCLT Bengaluru (23.06.2023) In Pankaj Srivastava Vs. Narappa Manohar Reddy. [IA No. 361 of 2021 & I.A No. 568 of 2022 In CP (IB) No. 243/BB/2018] held that;

  • Provisions of Section 19 shall apply in relation to voluntary liquidation process as they apply in relation to liquidation process with the substitution of references to the liquidator for references to the interim resolution professional.


Excerpts of the order;  

IA NO 361 OF 2021

# 1. The instant application has been filed by Resolution Professional (herein after ‘applicant’) under Section 19 (2) r/w 60 (5) of the I & B Code, 2016 interalia seeking directions to provide all the original documents in the possession of the respondents in support of acquisition of lands as appearing in the Audited Financial Statements namely, Land parcels for Rs.5.19 Cr, Land parcels forming part of sale agreement dated 11.10.2018 admeasuring about 21.39 acres and amounting to Rs.12.40 Cr, allow the resolution professional to take possession of all the records related to financial statements as well as land documents and issue appropriate directions to Ex-Directors/Management for extending full cooperation and to provide necessary information to the resolution professional for completing the required compliances to various statutes and a successful completion of CIRP. On 4.11.2022, this Tribunal approved the Liquidation of M/s Sagar Power (Neerukatte) Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor and appointed the Applicant/Resolution Professional as the Liquidator.


# 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the application which are relevant to the issue in question, are as follows: 

  • I. In the meeting of CoC held on 28.12.2020, the requests were made by the CoC to the respondents to provide numerous information with regard to the land parcels of the Corporate Debtor, its other liabilities, books of accounts, etc. to properly assess the financial position of the Corporate Debtor .the applicant has not been provided the necessary information and assistance since Jan 2021.

  • II. In spite of the Covid 19 lock down restrictions by the Central Government and respective State Governments, the respondents have continued to not co operate and comply with the directions and requests of the applicant. The Auditors of the Company appointed by the Erstwhile Directors have in their letter dated 15.02.2021 expressed their inability to sign the audited financial statement for the period 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020 which includes audit of books of accounts up to Insolvency commencement date as on 27.09.2019, due to refusal of Erstwhile Directors to sign the Audited Statements.

  • III. The respondents have time to time failed to provide information with respect to an amount of Rs.5.19 Crores is capitalized as Landin the books of the Corporate Debtor and appears in the Audited Balance sheet as at 31.03.2019, documents in support of transfer of land admeasuring 21.39 acres in the name of the Corporate Debtor by way of sale agreement dated 11.10.2018 for which corporate debtor has compensated the seller being the ex directors to the tune of Rs.12.40 Crores. The respondents have failed to register the said property by way of entering into a sale deed with the Corporate Debtor, original documents of the various land parcels as listed in the sale agreement have not been handed over to the resolution professional. The accounts upto 31.03.2020, as respondents as Directors holding office as on the date and fully in control of the business upto 27th Sep 2019 being the date of order of admission of the Corporate Debtor under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, have refused to sign the financial statements resulting in failure of completing annual compliances with various regulatory authorities. 

  • IV. The registered office of the Corporate Debtor has not been operational since the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The makeshift office of the Corporate Debtor where the erstwhile promoter’s conduct their other business and which was visited by the applicant does not contain most of the relevant documents and the officers stationed at the makeshift office are not aware of the whereabouts of the documentations and records of the Corporate Debtor.

  • V. The applicant had issued a Legal Notice dated 09.09.2021, the respondent neither came forward to provide the information neither sought nor provided any reply to the said Legal notice.


# 3. The Respondent No 1 has filed the reply for the application vide Diary No. 5184 dated 1.12.2022 inter alia contending as follows:

  • a) The Respondent No 1 has furnished all the necessary information and has been providing the necessary assistance as and when required by the Resolution Professional in managing the affairs of the Corporate Debtor. The Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor were suspended and the Resolution Professional has not convened any meeting of the Board to discuss the Accounts or Affairs of the Company nor convened any discussions to consider, draft and finalize the returns for the said period.

  • b) It is submitted that the details of amount of Rs.5.19 Crores capitalised as land enclosed by the applicants as Annexure G along with the application is ledger extract and not the Audited Balance Sheet. The Balance Sheet for the period 2018-19 was neither signed by the auditor nor it was filed by the Resolution Professional.

  • c) It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor was in requirement of the land for the purpose of storing water and the respondent no 1 being the promoter of the company had tried to mobilize land for the same and the agricultural land was mobilized to the extent of 100 Acres and some portion of land was registered and some portion of land is still in agreement stage and not executed as an absolute sale deed in the name of the Company. Out of the acquired land,21.39 Acres(which is in agreement stage) was not entered as absolute sale deed and was in the possession of the respondent no.1 and the consideration for the same has been paid.The banks were aware of the facts pertaining to the process and efforts and chronology with respect to Acquisition/mobilization of land.The Banks has insisted the Respondent No 1 to give the documents pertaining to land acquisition as security accordingly the same was given to the bank (all absolute sale deeds not sale agreements which banks desisted).Further clarification with respect to the land measuring 21,39 acres was provided by the respondent no 1 in his email date 27.07.2020.

  • d) The fixed asset register is not required to claim the insurance. Further the applicant has not taken care of the insurance renewals because of which, the insurance amount could not be claimed.


# 4. The Respondent No 2 has filed the reply for the application vide Diary No. 857 dated 14.02.2023 inter alia contending as follows: 

  • I. The respondent no 2 has commenced her tenure as the director of the corporate debtor from 11.04.2008 and thereafter, resigned from the post on 1.04.2019, she ceased to be part of the day today affairs of the company. Hence the documents sought by the resolution professional in the application are neither in the possession of the respondent no 2 nor in her control as an Ex-director.

  • II. The management of the company is to be handled by the Board of directors but the provisions of sec 19 cannot be read to mean that whatsoever was the director of the company including the director who has resigned should be made responsible for extending co operation to the resolution professional.


# 5. The applicant has filed the rejoinder for the application vide Diary No. 5293 dated 08.12.2022, is inter alia contended as under: 

  • a) The CoC meeting held on 28.12.2020, wherein the respondents were requested to furnish the information with respect to the land parcels and related assets, books of accounts etc for the proper assessment of the financial position of the Corporate Debtor. But the respondents gave a vague reply and did not furnish the information. The same was reflected in the minutes of the CoC meeting dated 29.12.2020.Further, the applicant sends various e-mails to the Respondents with respect to the land parcel, but no information was furnished to the applicant. The emails dated 20.10.2020 is attached as Annexure E to the application. Moreover, the Respondents have not signed the Audited Financial Statements for the FY 2019-2020 of the Corporate Debtor, which itself made the applicant to assess the true value of assets of the Corporate Debtor. 

  • b) It is submitted that, after the audit undertaken by the applicant, it was clear that four land parcels were associated with the project of the Corporate Debtor of which specific details were mentioned along with survey nos and amounts. The Land Parcel no.4 was included in Fixed Asset Schedule of the Corporate Debtor Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2019 and as on 31.03.2018 and earlier years. 

  • c) Therefore, the respondents failed to provide any information with respect to the land parcels and refused to cooperate with the Applicant, for the reasons best known to him.


# 6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and extant provisions of the Code, and the Regulations made there under.


# 7. The relevant extract of the Section 19 IBC is as under:

  • (1) The personnel of the corporate debtor, its promoters or any other person associated with the management of the corporate debtor shall extend all assistance and cooperation to the interim resolution professional as may be required by him in managing the affairs of the corporate debtor.’

  • (2) Where any personnel of the corporate debtor, its promoter or any other person required to assist or cooperate with the interim resolution professional does not assist or cooperate, the interim resolution professional may make an application to the Adjudicating Authority for necessary directions. 

  • (3) The Adjudicating Authority, on receiving an application under sub-section (2), shall by an order, direct such personnel or other person to comply with the instructions of the resolution professional and to co operate with him in collection of information and management of the corporate debtor.


# 8. In respect of Liquidation, it is necessary to reproduce Sec 34(3) of IBC which is as under:

  • (3) The personnel of the corporate debtor shall extend all assistance and corporation to the liquidator as may be required by him in managing the affairs of the corporate debtor and provisions of Section 19 shall apply in relation to voluntary liquidation process as they apply in relation to liquidation process with the substitution of references to the liquidator for references to the interim resolution professional.


# 9. It is desirable that, the respondents extend co operation to ensure that the Liquidator functions and conducts liquidation in terms of the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Accordingly, as per Section 19 and section 34 of IBC, this Adjudicating Authority directs the respondent no 1 to provide all the original documents in the possession in support of acquisition of lands as appearing in the Audited Financial Statements.


# 10. Moreover, this Adjudicating Authority is of the view that the ex director/management collectively and independently, must furnish information and documents and extend full co operation to the liquidator for  completing the required compliances to various statutes for a successful completion of the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. The respondents should co operate with the Liquidator in respect of supply of the documents as mentioned in prayers in the IA; and they cannot escape their obligation. Therefore this Adjudicating Authority in order to implement the intention of the Code directs the ex director/management to extent full co operation and simultaneously furnish all the requisite documents related to Corporate Debtor as desired in the prayers.


# 11. In the result the application is allowed with above directions. Accordingly IA NO 361 OF 2021 is disposed of.


IA NO 568 OF 2022

# 1. The instant application has been filed by Liquidator (herein after ‘applicant’) under Section 60 (5) of the I & B Code, r/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 inter alia seeking to pass an interim order restraining the respondents from trespassing or dealing with the Schedule Property as well as other Properties or assets owned by the Corporate Debtor till the final disposal of CP (IB) No.243/BB/2018,pass an interim order to maintain the status –quo of the Corporate Debtor till the final disposal of CP (IB) No. 243 of 2018.


# 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the application which are relevant to the issue in question, are as follows:

  • I. The applicant is seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to restrain them from illegally entering the property owned by the Corporate Debtor situated at Survey 463/2, Bajattur Village, Near Uppinangadi, Puttur Taluk,Dakshina Kannada District-574241 (hereinafter referred as the “Schedule Property”) as well as other Properties or assets owned by the Corporate Debtor in the surrounding areas of the Schedule Property measuring over 100 acres.

  • II. On 17.10.2022, the Liquidator was informed that certain people had trespassed upon the Schedule Property owned by the Corporate Debtor.

  • III. It is stated that with respect to the trespassing of the property of the corporate debtor by any persons including the respondent’s amounts to an illegal activity which is legally untenable as the corporate debtor is under liquidation and the matter is sub-judice.


# 3. Heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and extant provisions of the Code, and the Regulations made there under.


# 4. On 9.1.2023, when the matter was listed, this Tribunal issued notice. The proof of service filed by the applicant vide diary no 650 dated 02.02.2023, with tracking report with an endorsement showing ‘item delivery confirmed’, the respondents did not appear, therefore the respondents are proceeded against on an exparte basis.


# 5. We have observed that, trespassing of the Property of the corporate debtor by any persons including the respondents causes hindrance in the process of liquidation. Therefore respondents are restrained from trespassing or dealing with the Schedule Properties or assets owned by the corporate debtor and corporate debtor /liquidator is directed to maintain the status quo with regard to the Schedule Property till the disposal of CP (IB) NO 243/BB/2018.


# 6. Accordingly, IA No 568 of 2022 stands disposed of


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