# In the matter of Vipul -S Plastocrafts Pvt. Ltd.

> NCLT judgment dated 2023-11-23. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLT-00602. The case involves an application for the liquidation of Vipul S-Plastocrafts Private Limited,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 23 Nov 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLT-00602
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/vipul-s-plastocrafts-pvt-ltd-11691a87

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application for the liquidation of Vipul S-Plastocrafts Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor following a petition filed by Trimurti Services, the Operational Creditor, which was admitted on 2019-03-11. Jovita Reema Mathias was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The CoC was informed about the Expression of Interest (EOIs) received from prospective resolution applicants, but none of them complied with the eligibility criteria. The CoC did not approve a resolution plan within the CIRP period, nor could they extend the period. The applicant sought liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

## Facts

On 2019-03-11, the Tribunal admitted a petition filed by Trimurti Services, the Operational Creditor, initiating CIRP against Vipul S-Plastocrafts Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. Jovita Reema Mathias was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The IRP informed the CoC about receiving EOIs from prospective resolution applicants, but none met the eligibility criteria. The CoC failed to approve a resolution plan or extend the CIRP period. The CIRP period was set to expire on 2019-09-06. The applicant sought an extension of the CIRP period by 90 days, but the resolution for extension only gathered 62.60% of the voting share, against the required 66%. The Corporate Debtor continued to operate during the CIRP period and even made a modest profit. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Corporate Debtor, Vipul S-Plastocrafts Private Limited, should be liquidated under the …

**Ratio:** Section 33(1)(a) of the IBC stipulates that if the CoC does not approve a resolution plan

…

**Reasoning:** The CoC neither approved a resolution plan nor extended the CIRP period. The Tribunal

…

**Interpretation:** Section 33(1)(a) of the IBC mandates liquidation when the CIRP fails to achieve

…

**Application:** Since the CoC failed to approve a resolution plan or extend the CIRP period,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Prabhat…; V.G. B…
- **Respondents:** Vipul S. Plastocra…

## Timeline

- **2018-01-01 — Company Petiti…**: Company Petition No.…
- **2019-03-11 — Petition Ad…**: The Tribunal admitted the…

## 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/vipul-s-plastocrafts-pvt-ltd-11691a87