Motion for Relief Under Insolvency Code Faces Non-Compliance Impeding Corporate Resolution Process

The Resolution Professional (RP) filed a Motion seeking relief under section 19(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including cooperation and access to documents from the Respondents related to the Corporate Debtor. Despite repeated requests, the Respondents failed to provide necessary information, hindering the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Tribunal noted disputes between the Respondents, leading to a lack of essential documents. As a result of non-compliance, the Tribunal directed police assistance under section 429 of the Companies Act, 2013, to obtain crucial information. The Motion was disposed of, emphasizing the need for cooperation and timely information provision in insolvency proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Relief sought by the Resolution Professional under section 19(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Cooperation and support required from the Respondents.
3. Dispute regarding the availability of documents and information related to the Corporate Debtor.
4. Allegations between the Respondents regarding responsibility for the company's management.
5. Failure of the Respondents to provide necessary information to the Resolution Professional.
6. RP's inability to proceed with Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to lack of required information.
7. Lack of production of company books by the Respondents.
8. Need for police assistance under section 429 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:

1. The Resolution Professional (RP) filed an MA seeking various reliefs under section 19(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including cooperation, support, and access to necessary documents and information from the Respondents to fulfill statutory obligations related to the Corporate Debtor.

2. The Respondents, particularly R2 and R3, raised issues regarding the availability of documents prior to R2's appointment as director and the responsibility for managing the construction project. R3 stated that the documents in their possession have been provided, while R2 emphasized her appointment in 2016, deflecting responsibility for pre-2016 documents.

3. Despite the RP's repeated requests and ten hearings, the Respondents, namely R1 and R2, failed to provide the required information and documents related to the Corporate Debtor, causing hindrance to the CIRP process.

4. The Tribunal noted that R1 and R2, who are related, were involved in a dispute and making allegations against each other instead of fulfilling their duty to hand over the company books. R2 resigned as director, while R1 continued, indicating that the necessary documents should be with either of them.

5. Due to the Respondents' non-compliance and lack of cooperation, the RP faced challenges in proceeding with the CIRP, as essential information crucial for discharging duties was not provided, even after 268 days of the CIRP period.

6. Considering the circumstances and the critical need for information, the Tribunal directed the police authorities to assist the RP under section 429 of the Companies Act, 2013, to obtain the necessary information required to move forward with the resolution process.

7. Consequently, the MA filed by the RP was disposed of, highlighting the importance of cooperation, timely provision of information, and adherence to statutory obligations to facilitate a smooth insolvency resolution process.

---