TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral) Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 526 of 2021 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench by which an application bearing IA No. 131/JPR/2020 in CP No. 205/7/JPR/2019 filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 33 & 34 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Code') for initiation of liquidation proceedings against M/s. Atlas Alloy (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Corporate Debtor availed various credit facilities from the Financial Creditor (Punjab National Bank), by way of Cash Credit Facility, Bills Discounting, Term Loan, in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 27.08.2020. 4. It so transpired that in the 4th meeting of the CoC, held on 07.03.2020, the Erstwhile Director of the Corporate Debtor, proposed a 'One Time Settlement' (OTS) of an amount of Rs.7,30,00,000/- and decided to pay an upfront of Rs. 80,00,000/- to the Financial Creditor assuring that the OTS proposal would be sent before 13th March, 2020. It was decided that the CoC shall, upon the receipt of the proposal, present before the competent authority of the member of the CoC for further consideration. The RP convened the 5th Meeting of the CoC on 17.03.2020 and informed that he had neither received any OTS proposal nor any upfront amount before 13th March, 2020 from the Ex-Director of the Corporate Debtor. Since, the statuto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Director of the Corporate Debtor was not genuine as they have been found indulging in unnecessary litigation and delaying the matter. He has, particularly, referred to the following part of the minutes of 5th Meeting of the CoC which read as under: "The conduct of the erstwhile director of the corporate debtor is evident enough to prove that the party is not willing genuinely to settle the account but just to delay and frustrate the proceedings regularly submitting the proposals and disown them. He is reluctant to pay the dues rather by making various litigations to different forum/ authority creating hurdles in the recovery proceedings. Thus, such assurance of the erstwhile director of the corporate debtor can't be relied upon. As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a proposal along with copy of 2 DD dated 16.03.20 amounting Rs. 40.00 lac (30 lac and 10 lac) only purported to be pertaining to said corporate debtor, which also does not seems to be authentic. The same is sufficient to establish that the erstwhile director of the corporate debtor have violated the commitment made during last COC and not complied with its own submissions." 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the period of 180 days should have been further extended for the purpose of accepting/awaiting the proposal made by the Appellant for the purpose of keeping the Corporate Debtor as a going concern? 9. From the perusal of the r....