# In the matter of Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Jute Mills Private Limited IA(IBC)-23-2023 in CP (IB) 73-9-AMR-2020

> NCLT judgment dated 2023-06-28. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLT-02764. The application IA(IBC)/21/2023 was filed under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 28 Jun 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLT-02764
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/sri-lakshmi-srinivasa-jute-mills-private-limited-iaibc-23-2023-in-cp-ib-73-9-amr-cc44b388

## Summary

### Background

The application IA(IBC)/21/2023 was filed under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, by the Applicant/Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). The SRA sought an order to set aside the attachment orders passed by Respondent No. 2 & 3 on the assets of the Corporate Debtor (CD). The Resolution Professional (RP) had previously filed an application IA(BC)/183/2022, seeking approval of the Resolution Plan, which was approved by the Bench on 01.09.2022. The RP/R1 constituted a Monitoring Committee. The lands belonging to the CD were attached by R2 & R3 before the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), preventing their sale or transfer.

## Facts

The Corporate Debtor's lands were attached by R2 & R3 before the CIRP commenced, preventing their sale or transfer. R2 & R3 submitted claims in Form B during the CIRP, which were admitted by the RP/R1. R1 sent letters to R2 & R3 requesting the lifting of attachments. R1 compiled a statement showing the distribution of amounts based on the approved Resolution Plan. R2 and R3, after receiving money in full and final settlement, did not lift the attachment orders. R2 argued that the CD had sold immovable properties and that the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rajam, had received a demand draft for 1% of the claimed amount. R3 contended that the resolution plan was unfair to workers and that their provident fund was not adequately addressed. The Resolution Plan

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the attachment orders passed by R2 & R3 on the assets of the Corporate Debtor should be …

**Ratio:** Section 31 of the IBC, along with precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the statutory dues to R2 & R3, which were prior to the CIRP

…

**Interpretation:** Section 31 of the IBC is interpreted to mean that once a resolution plan is

…

**Application:** In this case, since the resolution plan was approved and the claims of R2 &

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** TELAPROLU…
- **Appellants:** Agrigo Trading…
- **Respondents:** LAKSHMI SRINIVASA…; M. Madhusudhana…

## Timeline

- **2022-09-01 — Approval of Resolution…**: The Bench approved the Resolution Plan of the Resolution Applicant/Applicant herein vide…
- **2022-11-02 — Deputy Assistant…**: Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST), M.G. Road (West) Circle sent mail dated 02.11.2022 to…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

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-division-bench-court-i-chenn/sri-lakshmi-srinivasa-jute-mills-private-limited-iaibc-23-2023-in-cp-ib-73-9-amr-cc44b388