https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286874 Liquidation was held to follow where the corporate insolvency resolution process expired without an approved resolution plan, and the information memorandum and resolution process could not be completed because records were unavailable and cooperation was lacking. The Committee of Creditors also declined to extend the CIRP period. On those facts, the statutory precondition under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was satisfied, and the adjudicating authority could order liquidation, appoint the proposed liquidator, and direct the consequential steps under the liquidation framework. en-us Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:07:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286874 Liquidation was held to follow where the corporate insolvency resolution process expired without an approved resolution plan, and the information memorandum and resolution process could not be completed because records were unavailable and cooperation was lacking. The Committee of Creditors also declined to extend the CIRP period. On those facts, the statutory precondition under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was satisfied, and the adjudicating authority could order liquidation, appoint the proposed liquidator, and direct the consequential steps under the liquidation framework. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286874