Tribunal Upholds Liquidation Order, Rejects RP's Application on Unsolicited EOI

The Tribunal dismissed the RP's application, rejecting the consideration of the unsolicited EOI/Resolution Plan from M/s. Hindustan Aqua Private Limited and upheld the liquidation order. The Tribunal emphasized the finality of the liquidation order and ruled out extending the CIRP period or recalling the liquidation order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of Expression of Interest/Resolution Plan of M/s. Hindustan Aqua Private Limited.
2. Extension of CIRP period by excluding litigation period.
3. Initiation of liquidation proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Consideration of Expression of Interest/Resolution Plan of M/s. Hindustan Aqua Private Limited:
The Resolution Professional (RP) filed an application seeking directions on whether the Expression of Interest (EOI)/Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Hindustan Aqua Private Limited should be considered. The RP had previously invited EOIs, which resulted in only one resolution plan from the promoters of the Corporate Debtor, who were subsequently disqualified under Section 29A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The RP received an unsolicited EOI and Resolution Plan from M/s. Hindustan Aqua Private Limited after the timelines for submission had expired. The RP declined the EOI citing the expired timelines and ongoing proceedings under Section 33 of the IBC. The Tribunal noted that the liquidation order had already been passed on 14.06.2019 due to the absence of a resolution plan and the expiry of the CIRP period. The Tribunal found no merit in considering the unsolicited EOI/Resolution Plan at this stage and rejected the prayer to consider it.

2. Extension of CIRP period by excluding litigation period:
The RP sought an extension of the CIRP period by excluding the litigation period, as allowed under the amended provisions of the IBC. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in the Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel v. Satish Kumar Gupta, which held that the timelines prescribed by Section 12 are not mandatory and can be extended under specific conditions. However, the Tribunal held that since the liquidation order had already been passed on 14.06.2019, there was no scope for extending the CIRP period. The Tribunal emphasized that the liquidation order was final and could not be reviewed or recalled.

3. Initiation of liquidation proceedings:
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the IBC, which govern the initiation of liquidation and the appointment of a liquidator. The Tribunal noted that the liquidation order was passed on 14.06.2019 due to the absence of a resolution plan and the expiry of the CIRP period. The RP had proposed his own name as the liquidator, and the Tribunal had deferred the appointment of the liquidator to the next hearing. The Tribunal clarified that the subsequent order dated 04.07.2019 did not recall the liquidation order but deferred the confirmation of the liquidator's appointment. The Tribunal concluded that the RP would continue to act as the liquidator unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 34(4) of the IBC. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to direct the RP or the Committee of Creditors (CoC) regarding the consideration of the EOI/Resolution Plan from M/s. Hindustan Aqua Private Limited.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the RP, rejecting the prayer to consider the unsolicited EOI/Resolution Plan of M/s. Hindustan Aqua Private Limited and upheld the liquidation order passed on 14.06.2019. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no scope for extending the CIRP period or recalling the liquidation order.

---