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>Consolidation of Liquidation Petitions for Efficiency and Consistency</h1> <h3>P.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Liquidator, Rakesh Bhatia Versus Arun Kumar Jain (Ex-director) of P.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd.</h3> P.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Liquidator, Rakesh Bhatia Versus Arun Kumar Jain (Ex-director) of P.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:Liquidator's application under Rule 16 (d) and 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 r/w Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 seeking transfer of petition No. CP No. 435(IB) of 2017 pending in NCLT Bench-III, New Delhi, to NCLT Bench-II, New Delhi, by tagging with Petitions CP No. (IB)415(ND) of 2017 & CP No. (IB) 417 (ND) of 2017.Analysis:1. Reasons for Application (Paras 3-6):- The Liquidator filed an application under Rule 16 (d) and 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking the transfer of pending petitions related to three group companies to ensure efficient liquidation proceedings.- The promoters of the group companies filed for CIRP under section 10 of the Code, leading to the commencement of CIRP against the companies.- Notably, the promoters/directors of the companies are the same, and significant transactions were conducted by closely related companies within the group.- The Liquidator argued that consolidating the petitions (CP. No. - (IB) 435 (ND) of 2017; CP. No. -(IB) 415 (ND) of 2017; & CP. No. (IB) 417 (ND) of 2017) for adjudication would streamline the liquidation process.- Delays in the liquidation process were attributed to different dates set by adjudicating authorities in each case, leading to conflicting orders from different benches of NCLT in New Delhi.- The Principal Bench of NCLT in New Delhi issued a common order on 26.06.2020 in all group company matters to address these issues.2. Decision on the Application:- Bench No. 2 had already reserved an order in IB-415(ND)2017, prompting the Liquidator to request placing the other two matters before the same Bench for consistency.- The application was allowed based on the reasons presented in the application paragraphs, emphasizing the need for efficiency and coherence in the liquidation proceedings.- The request of the Ex-Director to postpone the hearing was declined, citing previous opportunities provided for participation.This judgment reflects the Tribunal's consideration of the Liquidator's application for the transfer of pending petitions related to group companies to streamline the liquidation process and avoid conflicting orders. The decision to consolidate the petitions for adjudication by a single Bench highlights the importance of efficiency and consistency in insolvency proceedings, ultimately serving the interest of equity and good conscience.
TaxTMI 