SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 7983

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Mr. Labh Singh, Member (Judicial), Ms. Rekha Kantilal Shah, Member (Technical)
UCO BANK – Appellant
Versus
M/S BHUMYA TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
IA (Liquidation) No. 06/KB/2025 In CP(IBC) No. 1380/KB/2020



Advocates:
For Financial Creditor: Ms. Zeba Khan, Mr. S.K. Ray, Ms. Muskan Saha
For State Bank of India: Mr. Joy Saha, Mr. Chandan Mohata
For Respondents: Ms. Ashmita Lohia, Ms. Utkarshika, Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Ms. Mamta Binani, Mr. Shilendra Tiwaria, Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Mr. Sumit Biswas, Ms. Rajashree Bhowmick, Mr. Prasenjit Pal, Mr. Ajit Keshari

Non-compliance with the approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code necessitates liquidation proceedings to protect stakeholder interests.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 33(3) and 74 - Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Application filed by Financial Creditor UCO Bank for initiation of liquidation process against Bhumya Tea Company due to non-compliance with the approved resolution plan as the Successful Resolution Applicant failed to make payments within stipulated timelines - Respondent failed to fulfill commitments, resulting in losses for stakeholders - Court discussed the necessity of adherence to resolution plans as per statutory requirements to ensure corporate solvency (Paras 1.1-1.7, 3-9).

(B) The monitoring committee is obligated to take immediate actions when resolution plans are breached and must not grant leniency without valid justification (Paras 10-16).

Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of initiating the liquidation process due to blatant non-compliance with resolution plan by the Corporate Debtor.

Issues: The main issue was whether the corporate debtor's resolution plan was contravened and the necessary steps to be taken for liquidation as per statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal concluded that the corporate debtor's failure to comply with the obligations of the resolution plan necessitated s liquidation process under Section 33(3), affirming strict compliance with IBC provisions to maintain the integrity of insolvency proceedings.

Result: Liquidation ordered.

Table of Content
1. facts of cirp process and obligations of successful applicant. (Para 1)
2. legal reasoning for initiating liquidation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. consequences of non-compliance with the resolution plan. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

ORDER

Per: Labh Singh Member (Judicial) IA(Liquidation) No. 06/KB/2025

1. The present application has been filed by the Financial Creditor i.e., UCO Bank, to initiate liquidation process under IBC Code 2016, with respect to Bhumya Tea Company Private Limited and to appoint a liquidator for the Corporate Debtor with a further prayer that this Tribunal pass an order under Section 74 of the IBC Code to penalize respondent no.1.

1.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the CIRP process was initiated against the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 5th April 2022 passed by this Tribunal in CP No. 1380/KB/2020. Shri Santanu Brahma was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) who later on confirmed as Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor.

1.2 It has further been submitted that in pursuance to publication of expression of interest (EOI), respondent no. 1 being the sole Resolution Applicant submitted its resolution plan in accordance with provision of IBC Code 2016 and Regulation applicable thereon. After discussion, the respondent no. 1 was requested to submit its best updated and final plan for consideration of the CoC. Accordingly, updated and final resolution plan was submitted by respondent no. 1 on 26.11.2022. The said resolution plan was put to vote in 10th CoC meeting, and after considering the ‘feasibility and viability’ of the Resolution Plan, the Plan was approved by the CoC with 90% vote. Resolution Professional filed an application for approval of the resolution plan and resolution plan was approved by this Tribunal vide Order dated 28th August 2023.

1.3 It has further been submitted that in terms of the resolution plan, the respondent no. 1 was under an obligation to pay an upfront payment to the creditors of the corporate debtor on or before 28th September 2023. However, respondent no.1 did not pay the sum as per approved resolution plan; and accordingly, respondent no. 1 filed an application being I.A No. 1638 of 2023 praying for extension of time to pay upfront payment as per approved plan. This Tribunal allowed the application to pay the remaining sum in terms of the approved resolution plain within a period of 30 working days. Respondent No. 1 paid an amount of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores) as per approved resolution plan during the first extension period.

1.4 Thereafter, respondent no. 1 again filed an application being IA No 1798 of 2024 for extension of another 90 days and to make payment of Rs. 13,35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Crore Thirty-Five Lakhs) along with CIRP costs. This Tribunal, vide order dated 28th August 2024, allowed respondent no. 1 to pay remaining sum as per approved resolution plan with a period of 20 working days as approved by the CoC on or before 16th September 2024. However, respondent no. 1 failed to make payment as per resolution plan despite multiple extension allowed by the CoC. Respondent No. 1 did not fulfil its commitment made before the CoC in relation to submission of post-dated cheques in the name of Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates Private Limited.

1.5 Thus, due to non-compliance of approved resolution plan by Respondent No. 1, CoC on 14th January 2025 deliberated upon filing of an application before this Tribunal for seeking direction on re-issue of Form G and re-initiate of CIRP process. However, aggrieved by the decision of the CoC, the applicant decided to initiate liquidation process of Bhumya Tea Company Limited in terms of provision of Section 33 (3) of IBC, 2016. Respondent No. 1 has paid an amount of Rs. 7.15 Crore and balance amount of Rs. 13.35 Crore is yet outstanding.

1.6 It has further been submitted that as per Section 33 (3), if resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority is contravened by the conce

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top