Liquidation under insolvency law follows when no viable resolution plan is received and creditors approve winding up.

Where no viable resolution plan emerges during the CIRP and the Committee of Creditors, by the requisite majority, declines extension, liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code becomes appropriate. The Resolution Professional and CoC had repeatedly attempted revival through expressions of interest and investor participation, but no workable plan was received. On that basis, the application for liquidation was found to comply with the Code, and the proposed Liquidator had given consent and was treated as provisionally eligible for appointment. The Corporate Debtor was accordingly directed to be liquidated and the Resolution Professional appointed as Liquidator.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Corporate Debtor was liable to be placed in liquidation under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether the Resolution Professional could be appointed as Liquidator.

Analysis: The Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors made repeated efforts to revive the Corporate Debtor during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, including issuing expressions of interest and exploring investor participation. No viable resolution plan was received, and the CoC, by the requisite majority, resolved not to seek extension of the CIRP and approved liquidation. The application was therefore found to be in accordance with the Code, and the proposed Liquidator had furnished consent and was considered provisionally eligible for appointment.

Conclusion: The Corporate Debtor was directed to be liquidated, and the Resolution Professional was appointed as Liquidator.

---