9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1819 - Tri - Companies LawClarification/direction to exclude the period of 55 days from CIRP period - Section 12(2) of the I B Code 2016 - HELD THAT - The period of 270 days which will expire on 19.04.2018 be extended by excluding 55 days to complete the CIRP. The Bench having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the matter satisfied that the prayer of the applicant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Bench clarifies that 38 days time consumed in the litigation in deciding the MA No. 873/2018 filed by Suraksha ARC be excluded (Since on 22.01.2018 the MA was not listed and the Bench heard the MA on 09/02/2018 and orally directed the RP not to conduct any COC meeting till the date of final order on 19/03/2018) from the 90 days period in the order dated 24/01/2018. Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Clarification of exclusion of interim period in insolvency resolution process. 2. Interpretation of Section 12(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 3. Authority of Resolution Professional in seeking extension of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period. 4. Application of relevant judicial precedents in insolvency resolution proceedings. Issue 1: Clarification of exclusion of interim period in insolvency resolution process The Tribunal considered an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) seeking clarification regarding the exclusion of a 55-day interim period during the pendency of a matter filed by Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. The RP requested the exclusion of this period from the 90-day timeline set in a previous order. The RP highlighted that the Committee of Creditors (COC) meeting was delayed due to the Tribunal's oral directions, and the meeting could only be conducted after the final order was passed. The RP sought a direction to clarify the time spent on the adjudication of the matter, which led to the delay in conducting the COC meeting. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 12(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 The Tribunal referred to Section 12(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which allows the RP to seek an extension of the CIRP period upon passing a resolution by the COC. The Tribunal noted that the RP had followed the necessary procedures in seeking the exclusion of the 55-day period from the overall timeline. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and the need for clarity in interpreting the provisions related to the extension of the CIRP period. Issue 3: Authority of Resolution Professional in seeking extension of CIRP period The Tribunal examined the RP's authority to seek an extension of the CIRP period beyond the prescribed timeline. The RP clarified that they were not requesting an extension beyond the 270 days as stipulated in Section 12(2) of the Code but sought clarification to exclude the 55-day period from the previous order. The Tribunal acknowledged the RP's role in managing the insolvency resolution process and ensuring compliance with the legal requirements for seeking extensions based on the COC's decisions. Issue 4: Application of relevant judicial precedents in insolvency resolution proceedings The Tribunal considered the RP's reliance on a previous order of the Hon'ble NCLAT in a similar matter to support the request for exclusion of the interim period. The Tribunal noted the importance of judicial precedents in guiding decisions related to insolvency resolution proceedings and ensuring consistency in interpreting the provisions of the Code. By referencing relevant judicial decisions, the Tribunal provided a comprehensive analysis of the RP's application and the need for excluding the specific period from the CIRP timeline. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the RP's application, clarifying that the 55-day period consumed in the litigation should be excluded from the 90-day timeline set in the previous order. The decision emphasized the RP's adherence to the statutory provisions, the importance of COC decisions in seeking extensions, and the relevance of judicial precedents in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
