Liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code upheld when no resolution plan emerged and creditors approved liquidation.

Liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was upheld where the corporate insolvency resolution process was repeatedly extended, no resolution plan emerged, a proposed one-time settlement was not honoured, and the committee of creditors approved liquidation with 100% voting. The appellate tribunal found no valid objection to the liquidation application and no legal infirmity in proceeding under Section 33(1)(a). On those facts, interference with the liquidation order was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing liquidation of the corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 warranted interference, in view of the absence of any resolution plan, the failed settlement attempts, and the approval of liquidation by the committee of creditors.

Analysis: The record showed that the corporate insolvency resolution process had been extended on more than one occasion, yet no resolution plan emerged. The proposed one-time settlement was not honoured despite multiple opportunities, and the attempt to withdraw the proceedings under the settlement route did not succeed. The committee of creditors approved liquidation with 100% voting, and the Tribunal found no valid objection to the liquidation application. In appellate review, no infirmity was shown in the decision to proceed with liquidation under Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The liquidation order was upheld and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no resolution plan materialises during the corporate insolvency resolution process, the proposed settlement is not implemented, and the committee of creditors approves liquidation, the appellate forum will not interfere with a liquidation order passed under Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the absence of any legal error.

---