Liquidation under insolvency law sustained where creditors unanimously chose closure and no viable revival prospect existed.

Where the Committee of Creditors unanimously approved liquidation and no expression of interest emerged despite publication of Form G, the Appellate Tribunal found no realistic prospect of revival of the corporate debtor. It noted that the record showed no identifiable assets, incomplete books, and unresolved questions about capital work, while objections based on alleged forged documents, unverified claims, manipulation of records, and admission of additional documents did not undermine the liquidation decision. The Tribunal treated Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as leaving limited discretion once the creditor decision to liquidate was conveyed, and declined to interfere with the liquidation order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the liquidation order could be interfered with on the grounds that the Committee of Creditors had not made sufficient efforts for resolution, that the Section 7 proceedings were founded on alleged forged documents and unverified claims, and that additional documents ought not to have been taken on record.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the liquidation of the corporate debtor after the Committee of Creditors unanimously resolved to liquidate with 100% voting share and no expression of interest was received despite publication of Form G. The record showed that the corporate debtor had no identifiable assets, the available records were incomplete, and the promoters could not explain the capital work reflected in the books. In these circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal held that the corporate insolvency process had no realistic prospect of revival and that Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 left little discretion once the requisite creditors' decision to liquidate had been conveyed to the Adjudicating Authority. The objections regarding forged documents, alleged non-verification of claims, manipulation of records, and admission of additional documents were found to lack merit and did not displace the liquidation decision.

Conclusion: The challenge to the liquidation order was rejected, and the Tribunal held that the liquidation of the corporate debtor was valid.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the liquidation ordered by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed the closure of the corporate insolvency process in view of the unanimous creditor decision and absence of any viable revival prospect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Committee of Creditors approves liquidation by the requisite majority and the record shows no realistic prospect of resolution or revival, the Adjudicating Authority must pass a liquidation order and appellate interference is unwarranted absent legal or procedural infirmity.

---