36 (4) (a) (iv)

Whether Liquidator is authorized to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor in blocks? – Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund v. Ms. Rekha Kantilal Shah – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:
(i) The Liquidator has been provided with ample powers not only to sell the land in parcels but also not to be bound by the consultation with the stakeholders.
(ii) Section 36 of the IB Code 2016 categorically stipulates the scope and ambit of the liquidation estate. Sub-Section (4) of Section 36 is with respect to the assets which shall not be included in the liquidation estate and shall not be used for recovery in the liquidation.
(iii) The Liquidator is authorized to sell the immovable and movable property of the Corporate Debtor in liquidation through a public auction or a private contract, either collectively, or in a piecemeal manner.
(iv) The proviso to Section 35 (2) of the IBC makes it clear that the opinion of the stakeholders would not be binding on the Liquidator.

Whether Liquidator is authorized to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor in blocks? – Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund v. Ms. Rekha Kantilal Shah – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

The residuary jurisdiction of NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC provides a wide discretion to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising from or in relation to the insolvency resolution proceedings – Biotor Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation) Represented By Liquidator Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation – Gujarat High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that the reading of the Section 60(5)(c) indicates that the NCLT shall have a jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any question arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution. While in the case of Gujarat Urja (2021) ibclaw.in 44 SC and Tata Consultancy Services Limited (2021) ibclaw.in 167 SC the contract was central to the success of CIRP. Reading paras 80 to 87 of the judgment in Gujarat Urja (supra), what is evident is that the residuary jurisdiction of NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC provides a wide discretion to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising from or in relation to the insolvency resolution proceedings. Reading the relevant paragraphs in Tata Consultancy Services Limited (supra), the NCLT can intervene when, it is even the case of the petitioner that there is an embargo under the IBC. In the application filed by the respondent which is pending before the NCLT, it is open for the petitioner to take all the contentions raised in this petition. The residuary jurisdiction of the Tribunal therefore to decide this issue had already been invoked by the respondent and the petition therefore, at the hands of the petitioner company which seeks the protective umbrella under the IBC itself can oppose the prayers made in that application. For all the aforesaid reasons therefore, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

The residuary jurisdiction of NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC provides a wide discretion to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising from or in relation to the insolvency resolution proceedings – Biotor Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation) Represented By Liquidator Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation – Gujarat High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top