National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Upholds Appeal Against Liquidation Order — Liquidation Process Found Premature. Liquidation was ordered despite ongoing settlement efforts and lack of voting by the Committee of Creditors.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing the liquidation of Jeppiaar Cements Ltd. The corporate debtor had guaranteed loans taken by Jeppiaar Power Corporation Ltd. from Indian Bank. Following defaults in repayment, Indian Bank initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor, which was admitted on 10.10.2019. The CIRP timeline was extended due to COVID-19, and a One-Time Settlement (OTS) was sanctioned by Indian Bank, allowing the directors of the principal borrower time to repay the debt. Despite partial payments made under the OTS, the resolution professional filed for liquidation on 26.08.2022, which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellants argued that the liquidation was unjustified as it was passed without proper voting from the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and while the OTS was still being complied with. The liquidator contended that the resolution professional acted within his rights under Section 33(1) of the IBC. The court analyzed the circumstances leading to the liquidation order, emphasizing the importance of the resolution professional's independent judgment and the need for fairness in the insolvency process. Ultimately, the court found the liquidation order unsustainable and directed that it must give way to allow for the possibility of a settlement under Section 12A of the IBC.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Liquidation Process - Premature Liquidation - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 33(1) - The court found that the resolution professional acted under undue influence from the Registry, leading to a premature liquidation order despite ongoing settlement efforts. Held that the order of liquidation was not sustainable under the circumstances (Paras 10-24).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order of liquidation was justified given the ongoing One-Time Settlement and lack of voting for liquidation by the Committee of Creditors.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court found the order of liquidation unsustainable and directed that it must give way to allow for the possibility of a settlement under Section 12A of the IBC.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • corporate insolvency
  • liquidation process
  • resolution professional's duties
  • statutory timelines
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 117

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.358/2022

2026-08-24

Justice N. Seshasayee, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. T.K. Bhaskar, Mr. Ravi Rajagopalan, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Aanya Gupta, Mr. Jayesh B Dolia, Ms. N. Varsha

Mr. Babu Manoharan Jaikumar Christhurajan

Mr. Umesh Garg, Liquidator of Jeppiaar Cements Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the order of liquidation of a corporate debtor.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to challenge the liquidation order.

Filing Reason

Liquidation order was passed despite ongoing settlement efforts.

Previous Decisions

Liquidation order was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority on 26.08.2022.

Issues

Whether the liquidation order was justified given the ongoing One-Time Settlement. Whether the resolution professional acted within his authority and independent judgment.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the liquidation was passed without proper voting from the Committee of Creditors. Liquidator contended that the resolution professional acted within his rights under Section 33(1) of the IBC.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the need for the resolution professional to act independently and fairly, and that liquidation should be a last resort when no possibility of resolution exists.

Judgment Excerpts

The court found that the resolution professional acted under undue influence from the Registry, leading to a premature liquidation order. Liquidation is not a ready-reckoner remedy but is the option of the last resort. The timeline prescribed for completing a CIRP is held to be directory if the solution is not at a distance.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 26.08.2022, which directed the liquidation of Jeppiaar Cements Ltd. The CIRP was initiated on 10.10.2019, and various extensions were sought due to COVID-19 and ongoing settlement efforts.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7, Section 12(1), Section 12(3), Section 33(1), Section 33(2), Section 60(5), Section 12A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appellant's Specific Performance Suit for Lack of Readiness and Willingness — Agreement Holder Not Entitled to Equitable Relief. Concurrent findings affirmed that appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness un...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Conditional Order Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree in Eviction Suit. Court upholds condition of depositing arrears of rent as a valid exercise of discretion under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.