Withdrawal of Liquidation Application can be Accepted if CoC Permits RP to File Application for CIRP Time Extension: NCLAT [Read Order]
The tribunal concluded that when the CoC has already taken decision to file application for extension of time and granting permission to publish Form G for third time, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority by permitting withdrawal of the liquidation application
![Withdrawal of Liquidation Application can be Accepted if CoC Permits RP to File Application for CIRP Time Extension: NCLAT [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/National-Company-Law-Appellate-Tribunal-NCLAT-CIRP-CoC-withdrawal-of-liquidation-application-IA-Director-of-the-corporate-debtor-liquidation-application-Taxscan.jpg "Withdrawal of Liquidation Application can be Accepted if CoC Permits RP to File Application for CIRP Time Extension: NCLAT [Read Order]")
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi has held that when the CoC has already taken decision to file an application for extension of CIRP time period then the withdrawal of liquidation application by Adjudicating Authority can be permitted. Ramesh Jadhav , the appellant, filed appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which rejected an IA filed...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi has held that when the CoC has already taken decision to file an application for extension of CIRP time period then the withdrawal of liquidation application by Adjudicating Authority can be permitted.
Ramesh Jadhav , the appellant, filed appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which rejected an IA filed by the Suspended Director of the corporate debtor. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the appellant's prayers to recall its order extending the time for completing the CIRP, set aside the resolution plan accepted by the CoC, and bar the Resolution Professional from acting as the RP.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course - Enroll Now
The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority committed an error by permitting the withdrawal of the liquidation application in the absence of a resolution passed by the CoC on this behalf.
The bench viewed that the submission of the Appellant that there was no decision of the CoC permitting withdrawal of the liquidation application, hence, the Adjudicating Authority committed error in permitting withdrawal of application, does not commend us. When the CoC has already taken decision to file application for extension of time and granting permission to publish Form G for third time, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority by permitting withdrawal of the liquidation application, in facts of the present case. We, thus, do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. There is not merit in the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course - Enroll Now
The NCLAT bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) found that since resolution was already passed by the CoC seeking extension of the CIRP period, the Corporate Debtor did not go into compulsory liquidation under Section 33(1)(A) of the Code. It further noted that the CoC has also approved the filing of an application before the Adjudicating Authority for the issuance of a revised Form G.
While dismissing the appeal, the tribunal concluded that when the CoC has already taken decision to file application for extension of time and granting permission to publish Form G for third time, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority by permitting withdrawal of the liquidation application.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
