Tribunal rejects liquidation plea, finds Resolution Applicant compliant, upholds Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code objectives.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, ruling that the Resolution Applicant had complied with the Resolution Plan and the applicant's interests were not prejudicially affected. Emphasizing the primary objective of resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's claims. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for an interim order restraining land utilization and impleadment of an additional respondent, as they were interconnected with the primary liquidation application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
2. Interim order restraining the utilization of land belonging to the Corporate Debtor.
3. Impleadment of Central Bank of India as an additional respondent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor:
The ex-employee of the Corporate Debtor filed an application under Section 33(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and penal action under Section 74(3) of the Code. The applicant contended that the Resolution Applicant, KINFRA, contravened the Resolution Plan approved by the Tribunal by not running the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and failing to adhere to the implementation timeline. Specific allegations included the delay in constituting the Monitoring Committee and Board, non-payment of agreed debts to workmen and employees, and unauthorized utilization of land for a rubber factory. The respondents argued that the applicant had no locus standi as he had already received his claim amount and that liquidation would result in a nil payout for the applicant. They emphasized that the primary objective of IBC is resolution, not liquidation, and cited several case laws to support their argument. The Tribunal found that the applicant's interests were not prejudicially affected and noted that liquidation should only be a last resort. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that KINFRA had complied with the financial commitments under the Resolution Plan and that the applicant had already received his dues.

2. Interim Order Restraining Utilization of Land:
The applicant sought an interim order to restrain the 1st Respondent from utilizing the land belonging to the Corporate Debtor for running a rubber industry. The applicant argued that the utilization of the land for Kerala Rubber Limited was contrary to the approved Resolution Plan. The respondents countered that Kerala Rubber Limited was a separate entity and that the land utilization was part of the approved action plan to generate more revenue and keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The Tribunal found that the utilization of land for a new industrial establishment was part of the action plan approved by the CoC and the Tribunal and did not constitute a deviation from the Resolution Plan. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed this application as well.

3. Impleadment of Central Bank of India as Additional Respondent:
The applicant sought to implead the Central Bank of India as an additional respondent in the Miscellaneous Application for restraining the utilization of the land. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to address this issue separately, given the dismissal of the primary application for liquidation and the application for an interim order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, finding no merit in the applicant's claims and emphasizing the primary objective of resolution under the IBC. The Tribunal also dismissed the applications for an interim order and impleadment, as they were interconnected and dependent on the primary application for liquidation.

---