2018 (3) TMI 1605 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Counting the period of corporate insolvency resolution process - extend the period of Resolution process - Held that - Adjudicating Authority has not hold that the subject matter of the case do not justify to extend the period. It has not been rejected on the ground that the committee of creditors or resolution professional has not justified their performance during the 180 days. Adjudicating Authority was required to extend the period of Resolution process to enable the Committee of Creditor to find out whether a suitable resolution plan is to be approved or not instead of passing order for liquidation, which is the last recourse to be taken on failure of resolution process. We set aside the impugned order dated 9th January, 2018 and extend the period of resolution process for another 90 days to be counted from today. The period between 181st day and passing of this order shall not be counted for any purpose and is to be excluded for all purpose. Now the Resolution Professional, Committee of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority will proceed in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against dismissal of application under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- Interpretation of Section 12 regarding time limit for completion of insolvency resolution process
- Authority to extend the period of the resolution process
- Justification for extending the resolution process

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Resolution Professional against the order of the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the application under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority held that it lacked jurisdiction to revive the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period already completed by a certain date, emphasizing the importance of speed and timelines under the Code.

2. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) supported the Resolution Professional's case, mentioning that they had passed a resolution requesting an extension of time under Section 12 after the 180-day period had expired. They relied on a previous judgment by the Appellate Tribunal which clarified the provisions of Section 12, emphasizing that an application for extension can be filed after the 180-day period if instructed by the CoC with a 75% majority vote.

3. The Appellate Tribunal highlighted that Section 12 allows the Resolution Professional to file for an extension if instructed by the CoC, without specifying that the application must be filed within the initial 180 days. In cases where a resolution is passed by the CoC after the 180-day period, the Adjudicating Authority has the power to extend the resolution process for up to 90 days beyond the initial 180 days to ensure justice and completion of the process.

4. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not justify the rejection of the extension based on the subject matter or the performance of the CoC or Resolution Professional during the initial 180 days. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order, extended the resolution process for another 90 days, and excluded the period between the 181st day and the date of the order for all purposes. The Resolution Professional, CoC, and Adjudicating Authority were directed to proceed in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the resolution process was extended for another 90 days to facilitate the completion of the insolvency resolution process as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.