Tribunal Upholds Liquidation Order, Rejects Appeal Based on Limitation Period and CoC Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the liquidation order. It held that the Insolvency Application was within the limitation period, the CoC's decision for liquidation was non-justiciable, and the Corporate Debtor was ineligible to benefit from the amended MSME Act retrospectively. The judgment emphasized the prospective nature of the MSME amendments and the non-justiciable nature of CoC's commercial decisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of the Insolvency Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Justiciability of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) decision for Liquidation.
3. Eligibility of the Corporate Debtor under the amended MSME Act, 2006.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue of Limitation:
The Appellant argued that the Insolvency Application under Section 7 of the Code, filed on 03.07.2018, is barred by limitation since the Corporate Debtor was declared as NPA on 30.03.2015. However, the Tribunal found this contention unsustainable. The material on record evidenced revival letters written by the Corporate Debtor, with the last one dated 28.11.2015, acknowledging their liability. Hence, the Section 7 Petition filed on 06.07.2018 is within the limitation period. The ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 'Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda)' Vs. 'C. Shivkumar Reddy & Anr.' (2021) 10 SCC 330, was applied, affirming the jural relationship and acknowledgment of debt through revival letters.

Commercial Decision of CoC – Whether Justiciable:
The Tribunal addressed whether the CoC’s decision for liquidation was justified. It noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments, including 'Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited' Vs. 'Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited', (2021) 166 SCL 237 (SC), has established that the commercial decision of the CoC is non-justiciable unless there is material irregularity or fraud, which was not established in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that the CoC’s business decisions are based on thorough examination and collective wisdom, making them non-justiciable. The Appellants failed to prove any material irregularity under Section 30(2) of the Code in the liquidation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Eligibility under the Amended MSME Act 2006, Notified on 26.06.2020:
The Appellant claimed that the Corporate Debtor should benefit from the amended MSME Act, 2006, which came into effect on 01.07.2021. However, the Tribunal noted that the registration of the Corporate Debtor under MSME had not occurred, and the CIRP was initiated before the amendment. The Tribunal held that the MSME Notification is prospective and not retrospective, as it does not explicitly state otherwise. The eligibility to be a Resolution Applicant is tested on the date of submission of the Plan, and the Corporate Debtor was not registered as an MSME at that time. The Tribunal cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in 'S.L. Srnivas Jute Twine Mills P. Ltd.' Vs. 'Union of India & Ors.', (2006) 2 SCC 740, affirming that statutes are presumed to be prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The Tribunal concluded that the amendments to the MSME Act are prospective and cannot apply to the Corporate Debtor retrospectively. The CoC’s decision for liquidation, supported by a majority vote of 88.44%, was upheld as there was no material irregularity. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the IAs, affirming the liquidation order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the liquidation order and holding that the Insolvency Application was within the limitation period, the CoC’s decision for liquidation was non-justiciable, and the Corporate Debtor was ineligible to benefit from the amended MSME Act retrospectively. The judgment emphasized the prospective nature of the MSME amendments and the non-justiciable nature of CoC’s commercial decisions.

---