9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1457 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking extension of period of CIRP process beyond 330 days, although the RP was requesting just 15-20 days to complete the voting as two Resolution Plans had been received - HELD THAT - Considering the facts of the present matter and the reasons for the delay in the present matter as stated in the Appeal, we find that in the interest of justice and to give one last opportunity to the Resolution Professional to see if resolution becomes possible, it appears to us that grating of short period for completing the Insolvency Resolution Process is necessary. There are substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel for Appellant. The matter is remitted back. The Appellant - Resolution Professional will ensure that the Resolution Plan as already filed and placed before COC is urgently looked into and request the COC to urgently take decision one way or the other. For this purpose, time is given till 6th February, 2020 - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Extension of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period beyond 330 days. Analysis: The Appellant, a Resolution Professional, filed an appeal against the Impugned Order of the Adjudicating Authority, which declined to extend the CIRP period beyond 330 days. The Appellant requested a short extension of 15-20 days to complete the voting process as two Resolution Plans had been received. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor had started on 19th December 2018, but crucial details were made available to the RP only on 12th July 2019, causing delays. The Appellant argued that efforts were made to keep the Corporate Debtor a going concern for resolution. The Resolution Applicant had submitted a plan pending COC approval. The Appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar matter but the Adjudicating Authority did not grant the requested extension. Referring to previous judgments, the Adjudicating Authority declined the extension citing that COC had not resolved to authorize the RP to file for extension due to litigation process, but for administrative reasons. The Appellant argued that the judgment cited by the Adjudicating Authority did not apply to the present case as the Resolution Plan was submitted within the granted timeframe. The Appellant emphasized the objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for resolution over liquidation and requested a short extension to complete the process. The Appellant highlighted that no order of liquidation had been passed yet. Citing the Supreme Court's observations, the Appellant argued for an extension beyond 330 days in exceptional cases where delays were not attributable to litigants but external factors. The Appellate Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's submissions, allowing the appeal, quashing the Impugned Order, and remitting the matter back. The Resolution Professional was directed to ensure urgent COC decision on the Resolution Plan by a specified date. The Adjudicating Authority was given discretion for further orders if needed after the deadline. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of resolution over liquidation and granting a short extension for the completion of the Insolvency Resolution Process. The Tribunal highlighted the need for urgent COC decision on the Resolution Plan and provided a deadline for further actions, leaving room for subsequent orders as per IBC provisions.
|
