MSME status and resolution plan eligibility under insolvency law can bar premature liquidation where revival was not fully explored.

An acknowledged Entrepreneurs' Memorandum filed under the MSME procedure was treated as sufficient to establish MSME status, as the later notification did not by itself cancel that registration and no cancellation proceedings were shown. That MSME status brought the corporate debtor within the special treatment under Section 240A of the IBC, making it eligible to submit a resolution plan for revival. Where the committee of creditors had earlier permitted submission of a plan, it could not later refuse consideration on the ground that no plan had been invited. A premature liquidation decision, taken without adequately exploring resolution or undertaking valuation, was therefore unsustainable, and the insolvency process was directed to continue for consideration of resolution options.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the corporate debtor was a registered MSME on the basis of the acknowledged Entrepreneurs' Memorandum filed before the District Industries Centre; (ii) Whether an MSME corporate debtor was entitled to submit a resolution plan for revival under the insolvency regime; (iii) Whether the committee of creditors was justified in refusing to consider the appellant's resolution plan on the ground that no plan had been invited; and (iv) Whether the prior decision of the committee of creditors to liquidate the corporate debtor was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the corporate debtor was a registered MSME on the basis of the acknowledged Entrepreneurs' Memorandum filed before the District Industries Centre.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 permits filing of the memorandum in the prescribed form, and the notified procedure was followed when the appellant filed the Entrepreneurs' Memorandum and was allotted an acknowledgment number. The later notification relied upon to suggest cancellation did not operate as an automatic cancellation, and no cancellation proceedings had been shown. The record also indicated that the insolvency professional had not taken a clear contrary view supported by material. The acknowledged memorandum was therefore sufficient to treat the unit as a registered small enterprise.

Conclusion: The corporate debtor was an MSME.

Issue (ii): Whether an MSME corporate debtor was entitled to submit a resolution plan for revival under the insolvency regime.

Analysis: Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 grants special treatment to MSMEs by relaxing the ineligibility regime in relation to corporate insolvency resolution. The object of the Code is revival rather than premature liquidation, and the possibility of resolution must ordinarily be explored before liquidation is pursued. On the facts, the appellant's status as MSME supported his entitlement to place a resolution plan for consideration.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to submit a resolution plan.

Issue (iii): Whether the committee of creditors was justified in refusing to consider the appellant's resolution plan on the ground that no plan had been invited.

Analysis: The minutes of the sixth meeting showed that the committee of creditors and the resolution professional permitted the appellant to submit a resolution plan by a specified date. Once that permission was granted, it could not later be said that no plan had been invited. Refusal to consider the plan on that ground was therefore inconsistent with the earlier conduct of the committee and amounted to a material irregularity in the process.

Conclusion: The refusal to consider the resolution plan was not justified.

Issue (iv): Whether the prior decision of the committee of creditors to liquidate the corporate debtor was sustainable.

Analysis: The decision to liquidate was taken before the resolution process had been meaningfully explored, without a valuation exercise and without adequate steps to test the possibility of resolution. The later meetings showed that the committee itself proceeded to entertain the appellant's proposal, which was inconsistent with treating the earlier liquidation decision as final and sacrosanct. In the circumstances, the liquidation decision could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The decision to liquidate the corporate debtor was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the liquidation order was set aside, the liquidation application was rejected, and the corporate insolvency process was directed to continue with an opportunity to explore resolution, including consideration of any resolution plan submitted pursuant to the issuance of Form G.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an acknowledged Entrepreneurs' Memorandum establishes MSME status and the committee of creditors itself permits submission of a resolution plan, the corporate debtor must be treated as eligible for revival consideration; premature liquidation without properly exploring resolution and without consistent process cannot be sustained.

---