Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order dated 30.01.2026, where the National Company Law Tribunal directed the liquidation of M/s Macro Dairy Ventures Private Limited and appointed Mr. Rajeesh Gupta as Liquidator, despite the Committee of Creditors (CoC), comprising Punjab National Bank, unanimously recommending Mr. Rajesh Mehru for the position. The Adjudicating Authority admitted a Section 7 application on 30.11.2022, leading to a moratorium and the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. The CoC later replaced the Interim Resolution Professional and resolved to initiate liquidation in a subsequent meeting. The Appellant's appointment as Liquidator was unanimously approved in a CoC meeting, but the Adjudicating Authority's Impugned Order did not acknowledge this recommendation. The Appellant filed an application for rectification, which was dismissed, prompting the current appeal. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the CoC's recommendation and improperly relied on an IBBI communication that was inapplicable to the Appellant. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority's decision was arbitrary and set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 2, reinstating the Appellant as Liquidator, subject to verification of his Authorisation for Assignment. The Tribunal directed the transition of responsibilities and acknowledged the work done by Respondent No. 2 during his tenure.
Headnote
A) Insolvency Law - Liquidator Appointment - Non-consideration of Committee of Creditors' Recommendation - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 34 - The Adjudicating Authority failed to acknowledge the unanimous recommendation of the Committee of Creditors for the Appellant's appointment as Liquidator, instead appointing another professional without justification. Held that the decision was arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Code (Paras 30-32). B) Authorisation for Assignment - Validity of AFA - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Regulation 7A - The objection regarding the Appellant's Authorisation for Assignment was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority, and the Appellant was directed to verify his AFA status before assuming charge. Held that the objection could not sustain the Impugned Order (Paras 39-41). C) Liquidation Process - Progress of Liquidator - Liquidation Process Regulations - The progress made by Respondent No. 2 was deemed routine and did not outweigh the Committee of Creditors' unanimous decision. Held that the appointment of Respondent No. 2 was unsustainable (Paras 42-44).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in appointing a Liquidator without considering the Committee of Creditors' recommendation.
Final Decision
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the Impugned Order appointing Respondent No. 2 as Liquidator, and appointed the Appellant as Liquidator, subject to verification of his Authorisation for Assignment. The Tribunal directed the transition of responsibilities and acknowledged the work done by Respondent No. 2 during his tenure.
Law Points
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
- 2016
- Liquidation Process Regulations
- Committee of Creditors' recommendation
- Authorisation for Assignment
- Adjudicating Authority's discretion
