2018 (9) TMI 1964 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Completion of CIRP Process - HELD THAT - The Resolution is passed by sole Committee members. Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Post the case on 05/10/2018.

Summary

Issues:
1) Appointment of a new Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors.
2) Extension of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) time period.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appointment of a new Resolution Professional
The petition filed by Karnataka Bank Limited sought to appoint a new Resolution Professional, Shri Shivadutta Bannanje, in place of the previously appointed professional, Shri R.L Bhatia. The Committee of Creditors, consisting of Karnataka Bank Limited as the sole member, passed a resolution to appoint Shri Bannanje based on his qualifications and consent to carry out the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the Applicant's Counsel, Shri Y.P. Gokul, and examining the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, approved the appointment of Shri Bannanje as the Resolution Professional to handle the CIRP for the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found the appointment justified as it was made by the sole Committee member, and thus, allowed the petition for the appointment of the new Resolution Professional.

Issue 2: Extension of CIRP time period
The Committee of Creditors also sought an extension of the CIRP time period by an additional 90 days beyond the original 180-day period. The grounds for this extension included the bonafide and unintentional delay in the resolution process, the inability of the Interim Resolution Professional to convene the Committee of Creditors meeting due to the expiry of his term, and the unavailability of officers from the Financial and Operational Creditors to conduct necessary meetings. The Tribunal considered these grounds and granted the extension of the CIRP time period as requested by the Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal's decision to extend the CIRP time period was based on the genuine reasons provided by the Committee of Creditors, ensuring that the resolution process could be completed effectively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case addressed the issues of appointing a new Resolution Professional and extending the CIRP time period in a thorough manner, ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The decision was made after careful consideration of the facts presented and in accordance with the legal framework governing corporate insolvency proceedings.