IRP authorized to implement asset protection measures for corporate debtor under serial numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 12

Delhi HC permitted the Interim Resolution Professional to implement specific asset protection measures for the corporate debtor, including actions listed as serial numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 12. The court determined these measures were necessary to safeguard company assets and stakeholder interests. The IRP was directed to file a compliance and status report before the next hearing date. The application was disposed of with these directions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Intervention by Greenopolis Welfare Confederation in the proceedings.
2. Status of M/s Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website.
3. Role and actions of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
4. Impleadment of various parties in the proceedings.
5. Directions sought against the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Intervention by Greenopolis Welfare Confederation:

The application by Greenopolis Welfare Confederation (GWC) sought to intervene and be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The petitioner had no objection to this intervention. The Supreme Court had previously directed a status quo regarding the assets involved, which necessitated the inclusion of GWC as respondent no. 4. The application was disposed of with instructions to file an amended memo of parties within four weeks.

2. Status of M/s Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs Website:

The status of M/s Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. was shown as 'Active' on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website, which was misleading given the ongoing CIRP proceedings. The court noted that the misleading status could cause public confusion and was not in line with the Supreme Court's order to maintain status quo. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs was directed to update the company's status to 'under CIRP' within two weeks, failing which the Registrar of Companies would need to appear in person at the next hearing.

3. Role and Actions of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):

The IRP, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, sought permission to take several actions to safeguard the assets of the corporate debtor. These actions included increasing security, taking control of assets, and preventing unauthorized sales. The court allowed the IRP to implement measures such as securing identified assets, publicizing the laundering of assets, and conducting meetings with financial claimants. These steps were deemed necessary to protect the interests of stakeholders and prevent asset dissipation.

4. Impleadment of Various Parties in the Proceedings:

Multiple applications for impleadment were considered. Mr. Vidur Bhardwaj's application was deferred due to the absence of supporting documents. The application by GWS Welfare for impleadment as respondent no. 5 was pending a reply from the petitioner. These applications were scheduled for further consideration on 26.11.2024.

5. Directions Sought Against the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI):

An application by the IRP sought directions against the IBBI. The court instructed that a copy of the application be supplied to the IBBI's counsel, with a reply to be filed within four weeks. This matter was also scheduled for hearing on 26.11.2024.

Overall, the judgment addressed the procedural aspects of the intervention and status updates, while emphasizing the need to protect the interests of stakeholders and maintain compliance with higher court directives.

---