National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Allows Liquidator's Appeal in Liquidation Process — Liquidation Commenced with Liquidation Order. The Tribunal held that the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern commenced on the date of the liquidation order, not upon the issuance of an auction notice.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by Debashis Nanda, the Liquidator of Chamber Constructions Private Limited, against an order from the National Company Law Tribunal, which dismissed his application seeking an extension of time to complete the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The appeal arose from a liquidation order dated 21.02.2024, which directed the Liquidator to explore the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The controversy centered on the interpretation of the Committee of Creditors' (CoC) decision under Regulation 39C of the CIRP Regulations and the implications of subsequent amendments to the Liquidation Regulations. The Appellant argued that the CoC's recommendation to sell as a going concern was part of the liquidation order and that the process had commenced with the order itself. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the application on the grounds that no auction notice had been issued before the amendments came into force. The Tribunal found that the steps taken by the Liquidator were part of a continuous process and that the judicial restraint imposed by the Appellate Tribunal prevented the issuance of an auction notice. The Tribunal concluded that the liquidation process had commenced with the liquidation order and that the Adjudicating Authority's interpretation was incorrect. The Appellate Tribunal ultimately decided to set aside the Impugned Order, allowing the Liquidator to continue the sale process as directed by the liquidation order.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Liquidation Process - Commencement of Liquidation - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 33 - The Appellate Tribunal held that the liquidation by sale as a going concern commenced on the date of the liquidation order, not upon issuance of an auction notice, as the CoC's decision was incorporated into the liquidation order. The Tribunal emphasized that the process of sale is continuous and cannot be isolated to specific steps (Paras 20-50).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the liquidation by sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern had commenced on 21.02.2024 or only upon issuance of an auction notice or finalisation of an Asset Sale Process Document.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order, allowing the Liquidator to continue the sale process as directed by the liquidation order dated 21.02.2024.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Liquidation Process Regulations
  • Committee of Creditors
  • judicial restraint
  • commercial wisdom
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 9

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1297 of 2026

2026-10-07

Naresh Salecha

Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandri, Ms. Ruja Kaur, Mr. Aditya Jain, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Valecha, Ms. Shivangi Khandelwal

Debashis Nanda

Stakeholders' Consultation Committee, Gokul Anil Kumar

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the dismissal of an application for extension of time to complete the sale of a Corporate Debtor.

Remedy Sought

Liquidator sought extension of time and permission to complete the sale.

Filing Reason

The application was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Previous Decisions

Liquidation order dated 21.02.2024 directed the Liquidator to explore sale as a going concern.

Issues

Whether the liquidation by sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern had commenced on 21.02.2024. Whether the Impugned Order can be sustained.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the CoC's decision was incorporated into the liquidation order and that the process had commenced with the order. The Respondent contended that the sale process had not commenced as no auction notice was issued before the amendments.

Ratio Decidendi

Liquidation by sale as a going concern commenced on the date of the liquidation order, and the steps taken by the Liquidator were part of a continuous process.

Judgment Excerpts

The process of sale is continuous and cannot be isolated to specific steps. A party cannot be penalised for what an order of court rendered impossible. Liquidation by sale as a going concern commenced on the date of the liquidation order.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the dismissal of the Liquidator's application by the National Company Law Tribunal, which held that the sale process had not commenced before the Amendment Regulations came into force.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 33, Section 5(17)
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations: Regulation 39C, Regulation 32A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Murder Based on Circumstantial Evidence in Property Dispute Case. Conviction confirmed as chain of circumstances including motive, last seen, and recovery of body from locked house was complete and proved b...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellant in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.