https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417716 Expiry of the corporate insolvency resolution process without receipt of any resolution plan required liquidation under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal noted that the process had been extended and no plan was received despite publication of Form G, so the statutory basis for resolution had failed. It therefore treated liquidation as mandatory, appointed the proposed insolvency professional as liquidator subject to a valid authorisation for assignment, and directed the usual consequences under the Code, including transfer of control, cessation of board powers, restriction on proceedings, and compliance filings. en-us Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Jan 2022 07:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417716 Expiry of the corporate insolvency resolution process without receipt of any resolution plan required liquidation under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal noted that the process had been extended and no plan was received despite publication of Form G, so the statutory basis for resolution had failed. It therefore treated liquidation as mandatory, appointed the proposed insolvency professional as liquidator subject to a valid authorisation for assignment, and directed the usual consequences under the Code, including transfer of control, cessation of board powers, restriction on proceedings, and compliance filings. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417716