TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Successful Application for CIRP Withdrawal & Restoration of Board Powers</h1> <h3>Hariprasad Associates Versus Indian Overseas Bank, Periya Nagar Branch</h3> Hariprasad Associates Versus Indian Overseas Bank, Periya Nagar Branch - TMI Issues:1. Application for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under IBC and Regulations.2. Compliance with procedural requirements and creditor involvement.3. Legal costs and payment obligations.4. Discharge of IRP duties and restoration of Board of Directors' powers.Analysis:Issue 1: Application for withdrawal of CIRPThe judgment involves an Application seeking withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Regulations. The Application was moved by the Applicant through the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) appointed by the Tribunal. The IRP had initiated the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, and subsequent events led to the request for withdrawal.Issue 2: Compliance and Creditor InvolvementThe Application highlighted the procedural steps taken, including the public announcement for claims, formation of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and scheduling of the CoC meeting. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the CoC meeting was postponed. Additionally, other legal applications were filed by the IRP and the erstwhile Directors of the Corporate Debtor, seeking compliance and withdrawal of the CIRP based on a settlement between the parties.Issue 3: Legal Costs and Payment ObligationsThe judgment addressed the payment of fees to the IRP by the Operational Creditor, with a specific mention of a payment made via Demand Draft. The IRP claimed a balance sum for the estimated Insolvency Resolution Process Cost, including legal expenses incurred for various applications and defenses. The Tribunal determined that the Corporate Debtor should defray the balance sum of the costs incurred, considering the non-cooperation of the Corporate Debtor's personnel.Issue 4: Discharge of IRP Duties and Restoration of Board of Directors' PowersUpon allowing the Application for withdrawal of the CIRP, the Tribunal ordered the payment of the balance sum by the Corporate Debtor to the IRP. Consequently, the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was withdrawn, leading to the closure of related legal applications filed by the IRP and the erstwhile Directors. The duties of the IRP were discharged, and the powers of the Board of Directors, suspended during the CIRP initiation, were restored.In conclusion, the judgment detailed the procedural steps, creditor involvement, legal costs, and the eventual withdrawal of the CIRP, leading to the discharge of the IRP's duties and the restoration of the Board of Directors' powers.
TaxTMI 