# In the matter of Rajesh Narang Vs. Durha Vitrak Pvt Ltd & Ors.,Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No.612/2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-12-09. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00041. The appeal was filed by an ex-Director of Durha Vitrak Pvt Ltd, which operated Febris…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 9 Dec 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00041
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rajesh-narang-vs-durha-vitrak-pvt-ltd-orscompany-appeal-012d4fda

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by an ex-Director of Durha Vitrak Pvt Ltd, which operated Febris Multispeciality Hospital. The hospital was under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appeal challenges the NCLT's order dated 2021-05-31, which allowed an application by the Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. The appellant argues that the RP did not take steps to continue the hospital as a going concern and colluded with the financial creditor, LIC Housing Finance Ltd, which held 93% voting share in the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

## Facts

Durha Vitrak Pvt Ltd, operating Febris Multispeciality Hospital, faced financial difficulties, leading to CIRP initiation. LIC Housing Finance Ltd held 93% voting share in the CoC. The RP, Aishwarya Mohan Gahrana, filed an application under Section 33(2) of IBC for liquidation, which the NCLT approved. The appellant, an ex-director of Durha Vitrak, challenged this order, alleging the RP didn't attempt to revive the hospital and colluded with LIC. The hospital's account was declared NPA on 2018-04-07. The RP was appointed on 2019-11-08. The hospital generated Rs. 87 lakhs in revenue in November 2019. The appellant offered Rs. 32.5 crores for settlement, rejected by the CoC. The number of doctors decreased from 17 in October 2019 to 1 in December 2019. The number of

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the NCLT's order for liquidation under …

**Ratio:** The primary objective of the IBC is to resolve insolvency and keep the Corporate Debtor

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT found that the RP did not take reasonable steps to explore the possibility of

…

**Interpretation:** Section 33(2) of the IBC allows for liquidation when a resolution plan is not

…

**Application:** In this case, the NCLAT found that the NCLT's order for liquidation was not

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rakesh…; Ashok Kumar…
- **Appellants:** Rajesh N…
- **Respondents:** Febris Multispecia…; Durha Vitrak Pvt.…
- **Advocates:** Rajat Bha…; Sharad…; +3 more

## Timeline

- **2018-04-07 — Account decla…**: The account of the Corporate Debtor was…
- **2019-11-08 — CIRP Initiation and IRP…**: CIRP was initiated, and Aishwarya Mohan Gahrana was appointed as Interim Resolution…

## 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/rajesh-narang-vs-durha-vitrak-pvt-ltd-orscompany-appeal-012d4fda