2019 (10) TMI 1347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....solvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "IB Code"). The Applicant is represented through learned counsels. 2. On perusal of the records, it is found that a petition bearing No. CP (IB) 204/2017 was admitted on 02.11.2018 under section 9 of the IB Code and Mr. Ashok Pranshankar was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred as "IRP"). 3. On 28.11.2018, IRP made a public announcement for inviting claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor Company and constituted Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred as "CoC") on 19.12.2018. Claims were received from two financial creditors i.e. Union Bank of India and Deutsche Bank AG. 4. CoC in its first meeting held on 26.12.2018, propos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iscontinued as per the direction of the CoC. Further, M/s. Rajvanshi and Associates were appointed as Forensic Auditor. Moreover, the claims received from one Operational Creditor and one Financial Creditor could not be admitted as the same has some technical defects. It was stated by RP to the claimant that claim will be accepted once the defects are rectified. 9. It is further stated by the counsel that 2 EoI were received against the publication of invitation for calling EoI dated 09.02.2019 but no resolution plan were received due to high eligibility criteria. Considering the same, RP suggested the CoC to re-consider the eligibility criteria as it seemed that the present criterion is high. CoC also held the same view and agreed to ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CoC. It is found that CoC voted in favour of liquidation by 100% voting. 15. Under the facts and circumstances as narrated above, it is the commercial wisdom of the CoC, as such, we do not found any reason to interfere with the decision of the CoC. Accordingly, the application so filed by the RP is allowed and the RP may continue as liquidator. However, the liquidator is expected to dispose off the Corporate Debtor Company as a going concern. 16. In view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Allahabad Bank vs. ARC Holding Ltd.{[2000] 28 SCL 394 (SC) (para 19)}, we pass the following orders: a) The Liquidator shall, as far as possible, try to dispose of the Corporate Debtor Company as a going concern after....