# In the matter of Suvarna karnataka Cements Private Limited C.P(IB)No.15-BB-17

> NCLT judgment dated 2018-03-07. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLT-01743. The case involves a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against Suvarna…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 7 Mar 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLT-01743
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/suvarna-karnataka-cements-private-limited-cpibno15-bb-17-06e4b03a

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against Suvarna Karnataka Cements Private Limited. The Resolution Professional (RP) filed a progress report seeking directions from the Tribunal. The CIRP was initiated based on an application by the Corporate Applicant, and an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, who was later confirmed as the Resolution Professional. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) did not approve the Information Memorandum prepared by the RP. The RP reported that a resolution plan could not be prepared within 180 days, leading the CoC to seek an extension of time. The CoC decided to sell the plant/assets of the Corporate Debtor and invited expressions of interest. Only one proposal was received, which the CoC

…

## Facts

Suvarna Karnataka Cements Private Limited underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) following an application. An Interim Resolution Professional was appointed and later confirmed as the Resolution Professional (RP). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) did not approve the Information Memorandum prepared by the RP. The moratorium period started on April 28, 2017, and ended on October 25, 2017. The CoC sought an extension for the CIRP beyond the initial 180 days. The CoC decided to sell the plant/assets of the Corporate Debtor. Only one proposal was received from Mr. Siddharth Tikriwal of Cemboost India Private Limited for Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, with an Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The CoC deemed this value too low and did not approve the resolution

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority should order liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section …

**Ratio:** Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code mandates liquidation if no resolution

…

**Reasoning:** The Committee of Creditors did not approve any resolution plan within the moratorium

…

**Interpretation:** Section 33 of the IBC is interpreted to mean that if the CIRP fails to produce

…

**Application:** Since the Committee of Creditors did not approve any resolution plan for

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ratakonda…; Ashok Kumar…; +1 more
- **Respondents:** Suvarna Karnataka…
- **Advocates:** Sri. H.N.Va…

## Timeline

- **2017-04-28 — Order Da…**: Tribunal initiated Corporate Insolvency…
- **2017-10-17 — Order Da…**: Tribunal confirmed the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional as Resolution…

---

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/nclt-chandigarh/suvarna-karnataka-cements-private-limited-cpibno15-bb-17-06e4b03a