Appeal dismissed for failure to propose settlement in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process case

The appeal challenging the order allowing liquidation proceedings against a Corporate Debtor was dismissed as the Appellant failed to submit a proposed settlement within the agreed timeline. The lack of a genuine intention to resolve the matter led to the decision not to extend the 180-day period for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Despite a One Time Settlement proposal, the failure to meet deadlines and provide required payments resulted in the Tribunal upholding the decision for liquidation due to the absence of a viable resolution plan.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the challenge against the order allowing liquidation proceedings against a Corporate Debtor, consideration of One Time Settlement proposal, and the extension of the 180-day period for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Liquidation Proceedings:
The appeal challenged the order allowing liquidation proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, which was admitted for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CoC decided on liquidation due to the lack of a resolution plan or a viable proposal for settlement, despite a proposed One Time Settlement (OTS) not materializing within the stipulated time frame.

One Time Settlement Proposal:
The Erstwhile Director of the Corporate Debtor proposed an OTS of Rs. 7.30 crore with an upfront amount of Rs. 80 lakh, but failed to submit the proposal within the agreed timeline. The CoC, considering the conduct of the Erstwhile Director, decided to proceed with liquidation as the statutory time limit for CIRP was expiring, and no authentic proposal was received despite subsequent communications.

Extension of 180-Day Period:
The key issue was whether the 180-day period for CIRP should have been extended to await the proposal from the Appellant. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had been given sufficient time as per their own commitment, but failed to submit the required proposal within the agreed timeline. The failure to provide the proposed settlement amount and upfront payment indicated a lack of genuine intention on the part of the Appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as the Appellant failed to submit the proposed settlement within the agreed timeline, demonstrating a lack of genuine intention to resolve the matter. The Tribunal found no valid reason to extend the 180-day period for CIRP, considering the conduct and actions of the parties involved in the case.

---