Case Law Details
Amit Ahirrao Vs Anagha Anasingharaju (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator is obliged to consider the average of the value arrived as per Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulation, 2016.
Facts- The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on an application filed by Respondent No.2, the Financial Creditor under Section 7 by order dated 29.09.2021. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order admitting CIRP which appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 970 of 2021 was dismissed by this Tribunal. The Committee of Creditors passed resolution and Form G was issued by the Resolution Professional, however, no resolution plan could be submitted in the process. The Committee of Creditors in its 7th meeting held on 10.03.2022 with 100% vote resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor, in pursuance of which the Resolution Professional filed an I.A. which was allowed by the impugned order the appellant aggrieved by the said order has come up in this Appeal.
Conclusion- The present is a case where the valuation has been conducted under the CIRP Regulation, 2016. Liquidator is obliged to consider the average of the value arrived as per Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulation, 2016. Present is not a case where Liquidator has directed fresh valuation under Regulation 35 Sub-regulation (2). Although learned counsel for the Liquidator submits during course of submission that at the instance of Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee one valuation was obtained. Liquidator under Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 35 is empowered to appoint two Registered Valuers when Liquidator is of the opinion that fresh valuation is required. Present is not a case where Liquidator has exercised its jurisdiction under Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 35. Furthermore, in the present case, two valuation reports are already on the record, as brought on the record by the Appellant, as noted above. When the case is covered by Regulation 35(1), the Liquidator has to take the average of the estimate of the value arrived by the two Valuers.
We, however, are of the view that the Liquidator while proceeding to sell the assets in accordance with Liquidation Process Regulation, 2016 has to take the reserve value as per Schedule-I of the Liquidation Regulation. The reserve price has to be value of assets arrived at as per Regulation 35 (1), as noted above. We, thus, are of the view that the Liquidator while proceeding to sell the assets has to take reserve price on the basis of average of two valuation reports received in the CIRP process.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
