# In the matter of Prakash Chandra Kapoor & Anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar Iyer, (Liquidator) & Anr. I.A. 2484 of 2021 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 140 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-12-08. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00021. The case involves three appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 140 of 2021, Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 8 Dec 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00021
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/prakash-chandra-kapoor-anr-vs-vijay-kumar-iyer-99c83146

## Summary

### Background

The case involves three appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 140 of 2021, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 165 of 2021, and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 243 of 2021) challenging a common impugned order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench. The order pertains to I.A. No. 3702 of 2019 in CP (IB) No. 292/(MB)/2017, concerning the liquidation process and sale of assets of Bharati Defence and Infrastructure Limited (BDIL), the Corporate Debtor. The appeals were filed by Prakash Chandra Kapoor (erstwhile director), M/s. PGI GmbH Playglobal International, and Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Workmen Union of BDIL, respectively. The appeals contest the NCLT's decision regarding the liquidation process and the sale of the

…

## Facts

Bharati Defence and Infrastructure Limited (BDIL), the Corporate Debtor, is undergoing liquidation. The Adjudicating Authority had ordered the liquidation process, and the Liquidator was appointed. The appellants raised objections to the liquidation process, alleging that the Liquidator did not make sufficient efforts to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, particularly by failing to advertise internationally. They also argued that the assets were being undervalued and that a proposal from Playglobal International was wrongly rejected. The Liquidator contended that all necessary steps were taken to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, including issuing public announcements and inviting expressions of interest. The Liquidator also argued that the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Liquidator failed to adequately advertise the sale of the Corporate Debtor …

**Ratio:** The tribunal considered the contention that the Liquidator did not give sufficient

…

**Reasoning:** The tribunal reasoned that the Liquidator had taken steps to inform interested parties

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of the issue involves assessing whether the Liquidator's

…

**Application:** The tribunal applied the ratio to the specific facts of the case and concluded

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Anant Bijay…; Shreesha…
- **Appellants:** Prakash Chandra…
- **Respondents:** Bharati Defence…; Vijay Kuma…
- **Advocates:** Vikash D…; Arun K. Sri…; +10 more

## Timeline

- **2019-01-14 — Appointment of…**: The first Respondent was appointed as Liquidator of the 'Corporate Debtor' vide Order…
- **2019-05-14 — Appeal against…**: One of the shareholders of the ‘Corporate Debtor' preferred an Appeal namely Company…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(1) — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/prakash-chandra-kapoor-anr-vs-vijay-kumar-iyer-99c83146