Liquidation under insolvency law follows when CIRP expires without a resolution plan and no extension is granted.

Liquidation was held to follow where the corporate insolvency resolution process expired without an approved resolution plan, and the information memorandum and resolution process could not be completed because records were unavailable and cooperation was lacking. The Committee of Creditors also declined to extend the CIRP period. On those facts, the statutory precondition under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was satisfied, and the adjudicating authority could order liquidation, appoint the proposed liquidator, and direct the consequential steps under the liquidation framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on failure of the corporate insolvency resolution process to yield an approved resolution plan within the prescribed period, liquidation of the corporate debtor was warranted under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The application was founded on the expiry of the CIRP period without an approved resolution plan, the inability to prepare the information memorandum and carry out the resolution process because of unavailability of records and lack of cooperation, and the decision of the Committee of Creditors not to extend the CIRP period. On these facts, the statutory precondition for liquidation under Section 33(1) stood satisfied. Once the CIRP failed and no resolution plan had been received, the adjudicating authority was competent to pass an order of liquidation, appoint the proposed liquidator, and direct consequential steps under the liquidation regulations and the Code.

Conclusion: Liquidation of the corporate debtor was ordered and the resolution professional was appointed as liquidator.

---