# In the matter of U T Limited IA (IB) No. 999-KB-2021 in CP (IB) No. 1312-KB-2019

> NCLT judgment dated 2022-03-30. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLT-03461. The case involves an application filed by the Resolution Professional seeking liquidation of…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 30 Mar 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLT-03461
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/u-t-limited-ia-ib-no-999-kb-2021-in-cp-ib-no-1312-kb-2019-0322fdaf

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed by the Resolution Professional seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, UT Limited, due to the expiry of the CIRP period without an approved resolution plan. The CIRP was initiated following a petition by Vinnarasi Industries, an operational creditor, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) resolved to initiate liquidation and appoint Mr. Anang Kumar Shandilya as the liquidator.

## Facts

Vinnarasi Industries, an operational creditor, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, leading to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against UT Limited. Mr. Pranab Kumar Chakraborty was initially appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The IRP was later replaced by Mr. Kamal Narayan Jain, who was subsequently replaced by Mr. Anang Kumar Shandilya. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) was formed, including Antriksh Vyapaar Limited as a financial creditor. The CoC resolved to replace the IRP with Mr. Kamal Narayan Jain. Despite inviting Expressions of Interest (EoI), no prospective resolution applicants were interested in submitting a resolution plan. The CoC then resolved to initiate

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, UT Limited, should be allowed …

**Ratio:** Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code enjoins the Adjudicating Authority to

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the CIRP period had expired, and no resolution plan was approved

…

**Interpretation:** Section 33(1) is interpreted to mean that if the CIRP fails to produce a viable

…

**Application:** In this case, the CIRP period had expired, and no resolution plan was approved.

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rohit K…; Harish Chander…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Vinnarasi…
- **Respondents:** UT Lim…
- **Advocates:** Rishav Ba…; Avik Chau…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2020-02-28 — Initiation…**: Adjudicating Authority directed initiation of CIRP against UT Limited based on a petition…
- **2020-07-24 — Replacement…**: Mr. Kamal Narayan Jain replaced the initial IRP, Mr. Pranab Kumar Chakraborty, as the…

---

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/u-t-limited-ia-ib-no-999-kb-2021-in-cp-ib-no-1312-kb-2019-0322fdaf