Introduction

Voluntary liquidation, once a complex and opaque process, has undergone significant reforms with the recent amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) regulations. These amendments, dated January 31, 2024, have not only enhanced transparency and efficiency but have also introduced additional safeguards to protect stakeholders’ interests. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the voluntary liquidation process, covering its background, conditions, and steps involved. From the reasons for opting for voluntary liquidation to the detailed timeline of the process, this guide offers valuable insights for stakeholders navigating the voluntary liquidation journey.

Various Modes of Exit

Background

Companies are established under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and their dissolution concludes their existence as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). There are several ways in which a company can terminate its existence:

• Striking off – Fast Track Exit (FTE) under Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013: The Registrar of Companies can strike off a company’s name if it has not conducted any business operations for two years or more. Alternatively, a company can voluntarily apply for strike-off under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.

• Merger or Amalgamation under Sections 230-232/233 of Companies Act, 2013: A transferor company is dissolved when it merges with a transferee company under the provisions of Sections 230-232 or Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013.

• Winding-up by Tribunal under Sections 271-272 of Companies Act, 2013: Section 271 allows for the winding-up of a company under various circumstances, including upon the passing of a special resolution by members, non-filing of financials for five consecutive years, or on just and equitable grounds as determined by the Tribunal.

• Summary Liquidation under Section 361 of Companies Act, 2013: The Regional Director may order the winding-up of a company under a summary procedure if its assets’ book value does not exceed one crore rupees and it belongs to prescribed classes of companies.

• Liquidation of a Company under Section 33 of IBC, 2016: When a company fails to obtain a Resolution Plan under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), does not comply with the terms of an approved Resolution Plan, or for certain other reasons, the Tribunal may order its dissolution.
• Voluntary Liquidation under Section 59(7) of IBC, 2016 – Solvent Company: Voluntary liquidation is a process of winding up a company without court intervention. Shareholders and creditors appoint a liquidator to liquidate all assets, pay creditors, and distribute surplus amounts as per Section 53 of IBC, 2016.

Voluntary Liquidation pursuant to Section 59(7) of IBC, 2016

Introduction

As per Section 59(7) of IBC, a solvent company that intends to liquidate itself voluntarily and has not committed any default may initiate the voluntary liquidation process subject to certain conditions.

Reasons for Voluntary Liquidation

Companies opt for voluntary liquidation for various reasons:

1. Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV): A company can be liquidated when the object for which it was incorporated is fulfilled, such as the completion of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) project in real estate or infrastructure.
2. Unfeasible Operations or Poor Operating Conditions: Companies may choose voluntary liquidation if they lack potential business opportunities or face unfavorable operating conditions that make it economically unviable to continue operations.
3. Tax Planning: Voluntary liquidation can also be a tax planning measure for companies to avail certain tax benefits or offset capital losses.

Conditions for Voluntary Liquidation

For a company to undergo voluntary liquidation, it must fulfill the following conditions:

1. Solvent: The company must be solvent, i.e., able to pay its debts in full.
2. Resolution: The company must pass a special resolution through its shareholders and creditors, if any, resolving to wind up voluntarily.

Process of Voluntary Liquidation

• Solvency Declaration: The Board of Directors must file a Declaration of Solvency (DoS) affirming that the company is solvent, not being liquidated to defraud any person, and has made sufficient provision for pending matters. This declaration must be accompanied by audited financial statements and a report on asset valuation.

• Special Resolution: Shareholders must pass a special resolution within four weeks of the solvency declaration, approving the winding-up of the company and appointing an Insolvency Professional (IP) as the liquidator. If the company has any debt, creditors representing two-thirds in value must confirm the resolution within seven days.

• Intimation to ROC and IBBI: The company must inform the Registrar of Companies (ROC) and the IBBI about the commencement of voluntary liquidation within seven days of the resolution’s approval.

• Liquidator Takes Control: The appointed liquidator assumes management control of the company and begins the liquidation process, ensuring timely legal compliances.

• Public Announcement: Within five days of appointment, the liquidator must issue a public announcement requesting claims from stakeholders. Claims must be filed within 30 days, and the announcement must be published in newspapers and on the company’s website.

• Submission and Verification of Claims: Creditors are required to submit their claims within the specified period, attaching proof. The liquidator verifies these claims within 30 days and may admit or reject them. Rejected claims can be appealed to the Adjudicating Authority.

• Preliminary Report: The liquidator submits a preliminary report within 45 days of liquidation commencement, including the company’s capital structure, asset and liability estimates, and other relevant information.

• Separate Bank Account: The liquidator opens a separate bank account for the company in liquidation to receive all funds. Transactions above Rs 5000 must be made through specified channels.

• NOC from Tax Authorities: The liquidator informs the assessing officer about the commencement of liquidation. If no claims or NOC is received from tax authorities, it is presumed they have no outstanding claims.

• Asset Realization: The liquidator liquidates all assets and realizes funds to maximize stakeholder value, depositing the proceeds in the designated bank account.

• Distribution: After paying liquidation costs, the remaining amount is distributed to stakeholders as per Section 53 of IBC. Distribution must be completed within 30 days of receipt. Assets that cannot be realized may be distributed with approval.

• Preservation of Records: The liquidator maintains records as per prescribed formats, preserving electronic copies for a minimum of 8 years and physical copies for a minimum of 3 years.

• Completion of Liquidation: The liquidator endeavors to complete the process within 90 or 270 days, depending on creditor involvement. If not completed within the stipulated period, the liquidator must hold contributories meetings and submit status reports at regular intervals.

• Corporate Voluntary Liquidation Account: Unclaimed dividends and proceeds are deposited into a designated account, and stakeholders’ details are provided to ROC and IBBI.

• Final Report: After concluding the liquidation process, the liquidator prepares and files a Final Report with the registrar, IBBI, and NCLT, seeking dissolution.

• Petition to NCLT: The liquidator petitions the NCLT for a dissolution order, and upon approval, files Form INC 28 with the ROC to dissolve the company.

Income Tax Implications

Various Income Tax provisions apply to voluntary liquidation, including treatment of deemed dividends, capital gains, and compliance requirements for the liquidator.

Stamp Duty Impact

Transactions involving distribution of immovable property attract stamp duty as per state stamp acts.

Conclusion

While voluntary liquidation offers companies an exit route, navigating the process requires careful adherence to legal and regulatory requirements. Stakeholders contemplating voluntary liquidation should seek professional advice to ensure compliance and mitigate risks effectively.

In conclusion, the recent amendments to IBBI regulations have streamlined the voluntary liquidation process, making it more transparent and efficient. However, stakeholders must remain vigilant and proactive to address any challenges that may arise during the process.

The post Voluntary Liquidation under Companies Act, 2013 & IBC, 2016 appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The case of V. Venkata Siva Kumar vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) is a landmark judgment by the Madras High Court that addresses key issues surrounding the scope of the IBBI’s jurisdiction over insolvency professionals. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, the legal framework, the court’s judgment, and its implications.

The Scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)

Under the scheme of the IBC, once an insolvency petition is admitted by the Adjudicating Authority, it appoints an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Once the IRP completes their responsibilities, the matter progresses to the next stage where a Resolution Professional takes over. The IBC authorizes the Resolution Professional to share certain information, as listed in Regulation 36 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The objective at this point is to explore the possibility of evolving a resolution scheme for the Corporate Debtor (CD) facing insolvency.

If the resolution fails within the statutory time stipulated, then under Section 33 of the IBC, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) is required to proceed for liquidation of the CD. In this case, the resolution failed, and the NCLT initiated the liquidation proceedings of the CD. The NCLT appointed the Resolution Professional himself as the liquidator. Therefore, the process and procedure for liquidation of a CD are not exclusive to the domain of the Companies Act but are also contemplated within the IBC.

Liquidator’s Role: IBBI Confidentiality Measures

A liquidator appointed by the Adjudicating Authority in corporate insolvency proceedings is governed by the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Regulation 34(5) requires the liquidator to prepare an asset memorandum, which includes valuing the asset of the corporate debtors. This information can only be shared with the Board and the Stakeholder’s Consultation Committee (a body of corporate creditors constituted under Regulation 31A). However, it does not appear to authorize the liquidator to share the asset memorandum with potential purchasers of the corporate assets of the CD.

This indicates that the IBC and the Regulations made thereunder aim to protect the information leak on the valuation of the corporate assets both by the Resolution Professional or by the liquidator, even though they may have a role at different stages of a corporate insolvency proceeding.

Jurisdiction of the IBBI

The next point is whether the IBBI has jurisdiction to initiate a disciplinary action under Section 218 of the IBC. The petitioner contends that the same complaint was rejected by the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI (IIIP of ICAI), of which the petitioner is a member. The petitioner was also under a direction by the NCLT to explore a compromise under Section 230 of the Companies Act.

As explained earlier, liquidation of a CD is not alien to the scheme of the IBC. Regulation 2B of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations enables reading Section 230 of the Companies Act into it. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was directed to perform a role by the NCLT, it does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the IBBI.

The Court’s Judgment

The Madras High Court, in its judgment, considered that a prima facie ground is available for the IBBI to issue the show cause notice, as the petitioner admitted that he had shared the valuation report of the CD.

IBBI Jurisdiction: Key Takeaways from Madras High Court’s Conclusion

The judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of V. Venkata Siva Kumar vs. IBBI is a significant development in the insolvency law landscape in India. It clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries of the IBBI and sets a precedent for future cases involving the regulatory oversight of insolvency professionals. The case underscores the complex interplay between different roles within insolvency proceedings and the extent of regulatory oversight by bodies like the IBBI.

The post IBBI Case: Comprehensive Analysis of the V. Venkata Siva Kumar vs. IBBI Case appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) represents a watershed moment in India’s insolvency resolution framework, establishing a time-bound and comprehensive mechanism for corporate insolvency resolution and liquidation [1]. Central to the liquidation process is the role of the liquidator, who bears the critical responsibility of maximizing asset value and ensuring equitable distribution among stakeholders. The determination of liquidator’s remuneration has emerged as a contentious issue, particularly regarding the computation methodology and exclusion of certain periods from the liquidation timeline.

The IBC was enacted to replace the fragmented legislative framework that previously governed insolvency proceedings through various statutes including the Companies Act, 2013, the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985, and the SARFAESI Act, 2002 [2]. This comprehensive legislation aims to provide a unified approach to insolvency resolution while ensuring speedy and efficient proceedings.

Case Analysis on Liquidator’s Fee and Exclusion of Period

Legal Framework Governing Liquidator’s Fee

Statutory Basis Under the IBC

Section 34 of the IBC provides the foundational framework for liquidator remuneration. Subsection (8) specifically mandates that an Insolvency Professional proposed for appointment as liquidator shall charge fees as specified by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) [3]. The fee structure is intrinsically linked to the value of liquidation estate assets, ensuring proportionate compensation based on the complexity and scale of assets under liquidation.

Section 34(9) establishes that liquidator fees constitute a priority payment from liquidation proceeds under the waterfall mechanism prescribed in Section 53 of the IBC [4]. This statutory recognition underscores the critical importance of liquidator services in the insolvency ecosystem.

The definition of “liquidation cost” under Section 5(16) of the IBC encompasses any cost incurred by the liquidator during the liquidation period, subject to IBBI regulations [5]. This expansive definition was further clarified by the Bombay High Court in Amit Gupta v. IBBI, which held that Parliament intended a wide interpretation of liquidation costs, rejecting attempts to curtail its meaning through regulatory provisions [6].

IBBI Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016

The IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (Liquidation Regulations) operationalize the statutory framework through detailed provisions. Regulation 4 establishes a three-tier fee structure based on different decision-making authorities and circumstances.

Under Regulation 4(1), the Committee of Creditors (CoC) holds primary authority to determine liquidator fees pursuant to CIRP Regulation 39D [7]. This provision was inserted to maintain continuity between the resolution and liquidation phases, allowing the CoC to make informed decisions based on their understanding of the corporate debtor’s circumstances.

Regulation 4(1A), introduced through the Second Amendment Regulations, 2022, empowers the Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee (SCC) to fix liquidator fees when the CoC has not made such determination [8]. This amendment recognized the practical reality that many liquidation cases proceed without CoC involvement, necessitating alternative mechanisms for fee determination.

Regulation 4(2) provides a default fee structure when neither the CoC nor SCC determines the liquidator’s remuneration. This regulation establishes a detailed percentage-based fee schedule linked to asset realization and distribution timelines [9]. The regulation incorporates time-based fee reduction, reflecting the legislative intent to incentivize expeditious liquidation proceedings.

Regulation 4(3) and Period Exclusion Provisions

Regulation 4(3) addresses scenarios where asset realization or distribution occurs beyond the initial two-year period from liquidation commencement. The regulation provides that liquidators shall receive half the standard rate for assets realized or distributed after two years, or such extended period as may be allowed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 33(7) or Section 33(8) [10].

This provision embodies the IBC’s time-bound philosophy while recognizing that genuine delays may occur due to circumstances beyond the liquidator’s control. The reference to Section 33(7) and Section 33(8) creates a direct link between judicial extensions and fee calculation methodology.

Case Analysis: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal v. Canara Bank

Background and Factual Matrix

The case of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal (Liquidator of Punjab Basmati Rice Ltd.) v. Canara Bank, decided by the NCLT Chandigarh Bench on March 15, 2023, presents a comprehensive examination of liquidator fee computation and period exclusion principles [11]. The corporate debtor, Punjab Basmati Rice Ltd., entered CIRP on August 23, 2019, following default on various credit facilities.

The CIRP failed to yield a viable resolution plan, leading to liquidation order on February 24, 2020. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, who served as Resolution Professional during CIRP, was appointed as liquidator. The total asset realization amounted to Rs. 1,03,00,00,000, while Canara Bank held secured claims worth Rs. 1,02,62,00,000.

Procedural History and Period Exclusion Applications

The liquidator filed multiple applications seeking exclusion of various periods from the liquidation timeline due to extraordinary circumstances including the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns, and legal disputes. The NCLT Chandigarh Bench allowed these applications, excluding a total of 365 days from the liquidation period calculation.

This exclusion was granted under established judicial precedents recognizing that force majeure events and unforeseen circumstances should not prejudice liquidators who demonstrate due diligence in asset realization. The court’s approach aligns with the Supreme Court’s guidance in various IBC matters emphasizing substance over form.

Core Legal Issues

The primary dispute centered on whether the liquidator was entitled to full-rate fees under Regulation 4(2) or reduced fees under Regulation 4(3), considering the excluded period. The liquidator contended that when the excluded period was deducted, asset realization and distribution occurred within the initial two-year timeframe, entitling him to standard rates.

Canara Bank opposed this interpretation, arguing that the excluded period was merely a calculation adjustment rather than an extension under Section 33(7) or Section 33(8). This distinction was crucial as Regulation 4(3) specifically references extensions “allowed by Adjudicating Authority under section 33(7) or section 33(8).”

NCLT Chandigarh Bench Decision

The NCLT Chandigarh Bench delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing both the legal and factual aspects of the dispute. The court made several key findings that have broader implications for liquidation proceedings under the IBC.

The tribunal held that Mr. Aggarwal had performed his duties with due diligence and without prejudice to any stakeholder. This finding was critical as it established the liquidator’s bona fides, distinguishing the case from scenarios involving liquidator negligence or misconduct.

The court referenced the NCLAT decision in SIDBI v. Shri Vijender Sharma, which established the principle of excluding certain periods from liquidation timelines for fee calculation purposes [12]. This precedent was instrumental in supporting the liquidator’s position and demonstrates the evolving jurisprudence on this issue.

Legal Precedents and Jurisprudential Development

SIDBI v. Shri Vijender Sharma – NCLAT Precedent

The NCLAT decision in SIDBI v. Shri Vijender Sharma (2022) represents a landmark judgment establishing the principle of period exclusion for liquidator fee calculation [13]. The appellate tribunal held that Regulation 44 read with Regulation 4(3) permits exclusion of periods where delays occur due to circumstances beyond the liquidator’s control.

This decision recognized that rigid application of time limits without considering genuine impediments would create inequitable outcomes and potentially discourage qualified professionals from accepting liquidator appointments. The judgment emphasized that fee calculation should reflect actual performance rather than calendar-based timelines when extraordinary circumstances intervene.

Bombay High Court Decision in Amit Gupta v. IBBI

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Amit Gupta v. IBBI (2024) addressed the constitutional validity of IBBI’s clarificatory circular on liquidator fee computation [14]. The court struck down certain provisions of the circular as ultra vires, particularly those requiring court approval for period exclusions.

The judgment held that IBBI cannot introduce new requirements through circulars that materially alter regulatory provisions. This decision reinforces the principle that substantial changes to liquidation regulations must follow proper legislative procedures rather than administrative clarifications.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Jurisprudence

The NCLAT has consistently emphasized the importance of protecting liquidator interests while ensuring accountability. In various decisions, the appellate tribunal has recognized that liquidator fees should reflect the complexity and challenges faced during the liquidation process.

The tribunal’s approach balances stakeholder interests while acknowledging that experienced insolvency professionals require appropriate compensation to maintain the quality and effectiveness of the insolvency ecosystem.

Regulatory Framework Evolution

IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations Amendments

The Liquidation Regulations have undergone several amendments since their initial notification in 2016. The Second Amendment Regulations, 2022, introduced significant changes including the empowerment of SCC to determine liquidator fees and enhanced transparency requirements [15].

These amendments reflect IBBI’s continuous efforts to refine the regulatory framework based on practical experience and stakeholder feedback. The evolution of liquidation regulations demonstrates the adaptive nature of India’s insolvency framework.

Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee Role

The introduction of Regulation 31A establishing Stakeholders’ Consultation Committees marked a significant development in liquidation governance [16]. The SCC serves as an advisory body representing diverse stakeholder interests while providing oversight of liquidator activities.

Recent amendments have expanded the SCC’s role to include fee determination, asset sale decisions, and ongoing consultation requirements. These changes reflect the regulator’s intent to balance liquidator independence with stakeholder accountability.

Computation Methodology and Practical Implications

Fee Calculation Under Regulation 4(2)(b)

Regulation 4(2)(b) establishes a complex fee structure based on asset realization and distribution amounts, with varying rates for different time periods [17]. The regulation creates incentives for rapid asset realization while ensuring adequate compensation for liquidator services.

The fee table distinguishes between realization fees and distribution fees, recognizing that these activities may occur at different times and involve distinct challenges. Higher rates in initial months encourage prompt action while reduced rates for extended periods reflect the diminishing complexity of remaining assets.

Period Exclusion Criteria and Application

Courts have developed criteria for determining when period exclusions are appropriate. Key factors include the nature of the impediment, liquidator’s due diligence, impact on asset realization, and whether delays were beyond the liquidator’s control.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a clear example of circumstances warranting period exclusion, with various courts recognizing that lockdowns and health restrictions created genuine obstacles to liquidation activities.

Comparative Analysis with International Practices

Cross-Border Insolvency Fee Structures

International insolvency frameworks typically provide more flexible fee determination mechanisms compared to India’s structured approach. Countries like the United States and United Kingdom rely heavily on court supervision and stakeholder negotiation rather than predetermined fee schedules.

The Indian approach seeks to balance predictability with fairness, though it may lack the flexibility seen in more mature insolvency systems. The IBC’s relatively young age suggests that further refinements may occur as the system matures.

Best Practices and Recommendations

International experience suggests that effective insolvency systems require appropriate incentive structures for insolvency professionals while maintaining accountability to stakeholders. The Indian framework’s emphasis on time-bound proceedings and percentage-based fees represents a reasonable approach to these competing objectives.

Future Implications and Recommendations

Legislative and Regulatory Considerations

The evolving jurisprudence on liquidator fees suggests potential areas for legislative or regulatory clarification. Clear guidelines on period exclusion criteria, enhanced transparency in fee determination, and standardized procedures for addressing disputes could improve system efficiency.

Future amendments might consider creating more granular fee structures that better reflect the complexity and value addition of liquidator services across different sectors and case types.

Impact on Insolvency Ecosystem

Appropriate liquidator compensation is crucial for maintaining a robust pool of qualified insolvency professionals. Under-compensation could lead to talent exodus, while excessive fees might burden already distressed enterprises.

The current framework’s evolution through judicial interpretation and regulatory amendments suggests a maturation process that should ultimately enhance the effectiveness of India’s insolvency system.

Conclusion

The NCLT Chandigarh Bench’s decision in Mr. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal v. Canara Bank represents a significant contribution to the jurisprudence on liquidator fee computation and period exclusion under the IBC. The judgment affirms the principle that liquidators who demonstrate due diligence should not be penalized for delays caused by circumstances beyond their control.

The decision aligns with the IBC’s broader objectives of encouraging efficient asset realization while ensuring fair compensation for insolvency professionals. The court’s reliance on established NCLAT precedents demonstrates the developing consistency in judicial interpretation of liquidation regulations.

The case highlights the importance of balancing liquidator interests with stakeholder protection, a theme that runs throughout the IBC framework. As India’s insolvency system continues to mature, decisions like this contribute to the predictability and fairness that are essential for an effective insolvency regime.

The evolution of liquidator fee regulations through judicial interpretation and regulatory amendments reflects the adaptive nature of India’s insolvency framework. Future developments should continue to prioritize both efficiency and equity while maintaining the time-bound nature that distinguishes the IBC from previous insolvency legislation.

References

[1] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2046 

[2] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (2015) 

[3] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 34(8)

[4] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 34(9) read with Section 53

[5] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 5(16)

[6] Amit Gupta v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, (2024) ibclaw.in 250 HC (Bombay), available at: https://ibclaw.in/amit-gupta-vs-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-board-of-india-and-anr-bombay-high-court/ 

[7] IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, Regulation 4(1) read with CIRP Regulation 39D

[8] IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2022, available at: https://ibbi.gov.in/en/legal-framework/regulations 

[9] IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, Regulation 4(2)(b)

[10] IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, Regulation 4(3)

[11] Mr. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal v. Canara Bank, NCLT Chandigarh Bench (March 15, 2023)

[12] Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Shri Vijender Sharma, (2022) ibclaw.in 879 NCLAT, available at: https://ibclaw.in/small-industries-development-bank-of-india-sidbi-vs-shri-vijender-sharma-nclat-new-delhi/ 

[13] Ibid.

[14] Amit Gupta v. IBBI, supra note 6

[15] IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2022, supra note 8

Download Full Judgement

[pdfjs-viewer url=”https://bj-m.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/p/2023/09/the_insolvency_and_bankruptcy_code_2016-4-1.pdf” attachment_id=”26332″ viewer_width=100% viewer_height=800px fullscreen=false download=true print=false]

[pdfjs-viewer url=”https://bj-m.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/p/2023/09/6f25e2e303fb1cec921523b337ab0c80.pdf” attachment_id=”26334″ viewer_width=100% viewer_height=800px fullscreen=false download=true print=false]

[pdfjs-viewer url=”https://bj-m.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/p/2023/09/BLRCReportVol1_04112015.pdf” attachment_id=”26333″ viewer_width=100% viewer_height=800px fullscreen=false download=true print=false]

[pdfjs-viewer url=”https://bj-m.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/p/2023/09/b37ac2f0201e2e3c41cfa3d989f58f4d.pdf” attachment_id=”26335″ viewer_width=100% viewer_height=800px fullscreen=false download=true print=false]

[pdfjs-viewer url=”https://bj-m.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/p/2023/09/Insolvency-and-Bankruptcy-Board-of-India.pdf” attachment_id=”26336″ viewer_width=100% viewer_height=800px fullscreen=false download=true print=false]

The post Liquidator Fee Computation and Period Exclusion under the IBC appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.