TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TRA MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ekta Choudhary, Mr. Gaurav Raj Grover, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Satija, Ms. Ripul Swati, Mr. Suyash Shrivastava, Mr. Aridaman Raghav, Advocates for R1 Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocates for Liquidator. Ms. Shreya Moondhra, Advocate JUDGEMENT JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) The present Appeal assails the Impugned Order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench in I.A. No. 678 (AHM) of 2026 in C.P. (IB) No. 269 (AHM) of 2023, whereby the application filed by the Appellant, the successful auction purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 14.10.2025, Regulation 39C of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 ("CIRP Regulations"), inter alia, contemplated that while deciding to liquidate the Corporate Debtor under Section 33 of the Code, the Committee of Creditors could recommend in the event of liquidation of the corporate debtor, the liquidator first explore the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 ("Liquidation Regulations"). 5. It is pertinent to mention Section 33(2) of the Code provides Committee of Creditors may at any time during CIRP but before confirmation of resolution plan, decide to liquidate the corporate debtor by 66% voting share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....specifically resolved the Liquidator should first explore the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern under Regulation 32(e) of the Liquidation Regulations, in accordance with Regulation 39C of the CIRP Regulations. The said decision of the CoC was taken pursuant to a duty cast on it by Regulation 39C. The decision of the CoC was specifically placed before the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 5/AHM/2025 filed by the RP under section 33 of the Code. It was duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the liquidation order dated 10.10.2025. 8. The liquidation order dated 10.10.2025 records the decision of the Committee of Creditors taken under Regulation 39C, inter-alia, as follows: "....XIX. In compliance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mittee of Creditors under Regulation 39C to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, and passing an order of liquidation; the sale of Corporate Debtor as a going concern commenced on the date when liquidation order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 12. The subsequent steps undertaken by the Liquidator, including the exploration and conduct of the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, were therefore steps taken in implementation of an already existing liquidation order and the Committee of Creditors decision taken under Regulation 39C, pursuant to the course of action approved by the Committee of Creditors and expressly noticed by the Adjudicating Authority. 13. The auction process cannot be viewed in isolation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uidation Process Regulations as they stood on the date when the liquidation order was issued in this case. The liquidation order was issued on 15.10.2019..... 14. From perusal of the regulations as they existed on the date of liquidation order, it appears that the fees of the liquidator was to be either the fees decided by the CoC under Regulation 39D of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 or a percentage of fee on the amount that is realised/ distributed during the liquidation process. The Regulations, as it existed at the time on the date of the liquidation order, do not envisage payment of any fees or remuneration to the liquidator on a monthly basis, if such fee is not fixed by the CoC under Regulation 39D of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y commenced and had received the imprimatur of the Adjudicating Authority on 10.10.2025. 17. It is pertinent to note IBC proceedings are beneficial legislations i.e. for the benefit of the creditors and stakeholders. IBC being a commercial wisdom driven process with a primary goal of resolution and putting the Corporate Debtor back on its feet, then in the facts and circumstances of this case, non-sale as going concern would lead to loss of employment of 800+ employees if the factory is not restarted; and the farmers are primarily the operational creditors in the area, would lose significantly, who rely on selling their produce locally at high rate and low transport cost. Non grant of reliefs and attempt to unsettle any sale, has prejudi....