https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424295 Where no resolution plan was approved within the permitted CIRP period and repeated efforts to secure a viable plan failed, liquidation under section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 followed. The unsuccessful performance guarantee, failure of rival plans to secure the required voting threshold, and lack of any approved joint or going-concern arrangement supported liquidation. The existing resolution professional could also be appointed as liquidator under section 34(1), subject to filing written consent in the prescribed manner. The application for liquidation was therefore allowed and the corporate debtor was directed into liquidation. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424295 Where no resolution plan was approved within the permitted CIRP period and repeated efforts to secure a viable plan failed, liquidation under section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 followed. The unsuccessful performance guarantee, failure of rival plans to secure the required voting threshold, and lack of any approved joint or going-concern arrangement supported liquidation. The existing resolution professional could also be appointed as liquidator under section 34(1), subject to filing written consent in the prescribed manner. The application for liquidation was therefore allowed and the corporate debtor was directed into liquidation. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424295