2018 (10) TMI 1833 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

CIRP Process - time limitation - exclusion of time consumed in litigation and otherwise - extension of CIRP beyond the statutory time limit of 270 days - the applicant wants to issue fresh Form G by excluding the said property, which belongs to the corporate debtor - HELD THAT - Admittedly, Form-G were issued three times and not even a single Resolution Plan was received. Further, admittedly, the land which is sought to be excluded belongs to the corporate debtor and any asset which belongs to the corporate debtor, cannot be excluded from the information memorandum. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Exclusion of time in litigation and extension of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) beyond statutory limit.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking exclusion of time consumed in litigation and extension of the CIRP beyond the statutory limit of 270 days. The case involved the admission of CP (IB) No.136/Chd/Pb/2017 under Section 7 of the Code, appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional, issuance of public announcement of CIRP, and constitution of the Committee of Creditors. Despite issuing Form G multiple times and receiving Expression of Interest, no Resolution Plan was received. The applicant sought to exclude a vacant land of the corporate debtor from the information memorandum to issue a fresh Form G, claiming it may attract more resolution plans. However, the Tribunal noted that any asset belonging to the corporate debtor cannot be excluded from the information memorandum.

The Authorized Representative of the applicant argued for the exclusion of a specific property from the information memorandum to enhance the chances of receiving more resolution plans. However, the Tribunal ruled that assets belonging to the corporate debtor cannot be excluded from the information memorandum. The Tribunal emphasized that despite issuing Form G multiple times and not receiving any Resolution Plan, the exclusion of a corporate debtor's asset was not permissible. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the application and dismissed it.