Liquidation extension and insolvency assignment continuity: valid ongoing processes are not disturbed by later expiry of authorisation.
The commentary explains that a liquidation extension under Regulation 44(2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 will not ordinarily be disturbed where it was approved through a valid Committee of Stakeholders resolution, met the quorum requirement, and had already been substantially worked out. It also states that Regulation 7A of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 prevents fresh assignments without a valid authorisation for assignment, but preserves ongoing assignments already accepted when the authorisation expires, including on attainment of 70 years of age. The stated position is that such expiry does not by itself terminate the pending liquidation or bankruptcy-related assignment.
Issues: (i) Whether the extension of the liquidation period granted under Regulation 44(2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 was liable to be interfered with. (ii) Whether an insolvency professional could be removed or disqualified from continuing as liquidator or bankruptcy trustee merely because his authorisation for assignment had expired on attaining 70 years of age.
Issue (i): Whether the extension of the liquidation period granted under Regulation 44(2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 was liable to be interfered with.
Analysis: The extension had been granted on the basis of a valid resolution of the Committee of Stakeholders, with quorum satisfying the statutory threshold. The impugned extension had already run its course by the time the appeal was heard, and the liquidation process had benefited from the short extension granted. In that situation, putting the clock back on an exhausted period of extension was held to be unwarranted. The order was also found to be consistent with the object of the Code to preserve value and complete the liquidation process effectively.
Conclusion: The extension order under Regulation 44(2) was upheld and no interference was called for.
Issue (ii): Whether an insolvency professional could be removed or disqualified from continuing as liquidator or bankruptcy trustee merely because his authorisation for assignment had expired on attaining 70 years of age.
Analysis: Regulation 7A of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 bars fresh acceptance of assignments without a valid authorisation for assignment, but the proviso preserves ongoing assignments already undertaken when the authorisation expires. That exception was held to apply even where expiry occurs on attaining the upper age limit. The Tribunal's view that ongoing assignments do not abate abruptly on such expiry was found to be correct.
Conclusion: Expiry of authorisation for assignment on attaining 70 years did not disqualify continuation of the ongoing assignment.
Final Conclusion: Both appeals failed on merits, and the Tribunal affirmed the continuation of the liquidation and bankruptcy-related processes in accordance with the governing insolvency regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: An ongoing insolvency assignment is not terminated merely because the insolvency professional's authorisation for assignment expires during its pendency, and a validly granted liquidation extension will not be disturbed after it has been substantially worked out unless legal error or prejudice is shown.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
