Challenges to Liquidation Process Dismissed

The appeals challenging the initiation of the Liquidation Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority. The rejection of Resolution Plans by the Committee of Creditors led to the Liquidation Process for three companies, despite allegations of non-compliance with prescribed provisions. The court found that all procedural requirements had been followed, including the appointment of Interim Resolution Professionals and declaration of Moratorium. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with mandatory procedures from the appointment of Resolution Professional to the preparation of the Information Memorandum. The appeals were ultimately dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admittance of applications under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
2. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professionals and declaration of Moratorium.
3. Orders for Liquidation Process under Section 33(1) of the I&B Code after the expiry of 180 days.
4. Rejection of Resolution Plans by the Committee of Creditors.
5. Allegations of non-compliance with prescribed provisions of the I&B Code in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
6. Vacancy in the position of Resolution Professional and failure to seek extension of time.
7. Compliance with mandatory procedures from Appointment of Resolution Professional to Preparation of Information Memorandum.
8. Dismissal of appeals challenging the initiation of Liquidation Process.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the admission of applications under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by three companies, appointment of Interim Resolution Professionals, and declaration of Moratorium by the Adjudicating Authority in Chandigarh.

2. Following the expiry of 180 days, orders were passed for Liquidation Process under Section 33(1) of the I&B Code for the three Corporate Applicants due to the rejection of Resolution Plans by the Committee of Creditors, leading to the present appeals.

3. The Appellant, who is the Promoter of the Corporate Debtors, submitted Resolution Plans which were rejected by the Committee of Creditors, resulting in the initiation of Liquidation Process. Allegations were raised regarding non-compliance with prescribed provisions of the I&B Code in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

4. It was argued that the Resolution Process was completed without following the prescribed provisions, including the failure to seek an extension of 90 days, leading to the hasty liquidation orders by the Adjudicating Authority.

5. The judgment highlighted instances of non-compliance with mandatory procedures, such as the vacancy in the position of Resolution Professional, failure to seek extension of time, and lack of preparation of the Information Memorandum as required by the I&B Code.

6. The dismissal of the appeals challenging the initiation of the Liquidation Process was based on the finding that all procedural requirements had been followed, and once the Resolution Process reached finality with the rejection of Resolution Plans by the Committee of Creditors, the Adjudicating Authority had no option but to order the initiation of the Liquidation Process.

7. Overall, the judgment concluded that there was no merit in the appeals, and they were dismissed without any order as to costs.

---