# In the matter of Chandra Kalian Parkash Vs. Rajeev Mannadiar & Ors. CA (AT) No. 149-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-07-24. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00189. The appellant, promoter of Esskay Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), challenged the order…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 24 Jul 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00189
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/chandra-kalian-parkash-vs-rajeev-mannadiar-ors-ca-73aa2b9d

## Summary

### Background

The appellant, promoter of Esskay Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), challenged the order dated January 8, 2018, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The order pertained to the liquidation of the company and the appointment of a 'Liquidator' for that purpose. The appellant's grievance was that the 180-day period was to be completed by January 21, 2018, but the matter was hurriedly closed by the 'Committee of Creditors' in its meeting held on October 3, 2017, to proceed with the liquidation without further calling for a 'Resolution Plan'.

## Facts

The appellant, Chandra Kalian Parkash, is the promoter of Esskay Motors Pvt. Ltd., which is the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, passed an order on January 8, 2018, under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for the liquidation of Esskay Motors and appointed a Liquidator. The appellant's grievance is that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) decided to proceed with liquidation prematurely on October 3, 2017, without adequately exploring resolution plans, even though the 180-day period for resolution was to be completed by January 21, 2018. The CoC had asked the Resolution Professional to present a revival proposal on August 31, 2017, but no resolution plan was filed. The appellant's counsel

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order for liquidation was justified given the circumstances …

**Ratio:** The ratio is that the Adjudicating Authority's order for liquidation is justified when no

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that no resolution applicant came forward to file a resolution plan.

…

**Interpretation:** This interprets the IBC to mean that liquidation is a valid option when

…

**Application:** The court applied this ratio to the fact that no resolution plan was filed, and

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Chandra Kalian…
- **Respondents:** Esskay Motors Pvt…; Rajeev Man…

## Timeline

- **2017-08-31 — CoC Meet…**: The Committee of Creditors asked the Resolution Professional to come forward with a…
- **2017-10-03 — CoC Deci…**: The Committee of Creditors decided to…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 33(2) — Initiation of liquidation](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-33)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/chandra-kalian-parkash-vs-rajeev-mannadiar-ors-ca-73aa2b9d