TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion by this Appellate Tribunal in the instant Company Appeal is that, "when the proceedings of CIRP have reached the stage of Section 33(2) of the I & B Code, 2016, whether at all a pendency of an Interlocutory Application, seeking to be permitted to intervene in the proceedings, could create an impediment for the proceeding filed under Section 33(2) of the I & B Code, 2016." 2. The facts which engage consideration in the instant Company Appeal, are that, the Corporate (CD), M/s. Ravi Cranes and Movers is a Corporate Guarantor for M/s. RCM Infrastructure Ltd, that a CIRP proceeding as against the 'principal borrower' i.e., M/s. RCM Infrastructure Limited, stood initiated by an order passed by the learned Adjudicating Aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(liq)/14/2024. Section 33(2) of the I & B Code, 2016, provides for, that the Resolution Professional may at any time, during the CIRP Proceedings and before the confirmation of the Resolution Plan, intimate the learned Adjudicating Authority of the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which obviously, as per the statute, has to be approved by not less than 66% of the voting shares, to liquidate the Corporate Debtor, on receipt of which the learned Adjudicating Authority is to pass an order in accordance with Section 33(1) of the I & B Code, 2016. If the entire contents of IA(IBC)(liq)/14/2024, is taken into consideration, the Resolution Professional had preferred an application before the learned Adjudicating Authority, seek....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... security interest in respect of the 'Principal Borrower' by the Union Bank of India, vide Assignment Deed dated 19.08.2024 and since they are in majority in CoC and they wish to explore alternative avenues of insolvency resolution instead of liquidation, it was a case of M/s. Maximus ARC Limited that, since they have the liquidation proceedings as against the Corporate Debtor deserve to be deferred, till their IA No. 34 of 2024 was considered. 6. The M/s. Maximus ARC Limited, who was assigned with the loan on the basis of the deed of 19.08.2024, have contended in the intervention application thus preferred being IA No.34/2024 that, the present Appellant, Mr. K S Chowdry who is one of the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited, the assignee of the loan by the Union Bank of India, is that in accordance with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as rendered in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the objective should be to maximise the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor so that the Corporate Debtor could be facilitated to run as a going concern and that in order to meet the aforesaid objective, the application of M/s Maximus ARC Limited ought to have been considered prior to taking any decision on IA(IBC)(liq)/14/2024. 8. The said application came up for consideration before the learned Adjudicating Authority. The learned Adjudicating while passing an order on IA(IBC)(liq)/14/2024, has ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been made by the IRP to resolve the insolvency, that the Suspended Directors were not cooperative and had to be noticed by it to cooperate, that the CIRP period had been extended multiple times to avoid the option of liquidation, 20 meetings of CoC had been conducted to find a resolution including the option of one-time settlement and that finally in the 21st meeting CoC has resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor with 100% concurrence and requested the liquidator to file the necessary application for ordering liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. In view of the same and owing to the narrations and reasons which has been assigned by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority as above, the Impugned Order does not suffer from any error as it is clea....