9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1169 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyExclusion of period consumed in legal proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority for purposes of calculation of CIRP period - HELD THAT - While the Adjudicating Authority deemed it fit, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to extend time by 40 days beyond the extended time of 330 days for bringing the CIRP to a logical conclusion, the Adjudicating Authority has not taken care to exclude the period of judicial intervention viz. the period spent in pursuing the application seeking extension for exclusion to render the exercise productive. Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the Appellant has brought to our notice that as a result of exclusion of period of judicial intervention not been allowed, the extension granted has virtually proved to be futile and meaningless as even the extended period expired on 19th February, 2021. The period of judicial intervention w.e.f 21st October, 2020 till 9 th November, 2020 (the period covering the time spent in pursuing the extension application in the first instance) and 12th January, 2021 to 3rd February, 2021 (i.e. the period for which the orders were reserved by the Adjudicating Authority on the application) is justifiably required to be excluded while counting and computing the period of CIRP - Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
Exclusion of period consumed in legal proceedings for calculation of CIRP period. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of excluding the period consumed in legal proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority for the calculation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period. The Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor was aggrieved by the denial of his request for exclusion of specific periods. The Tribunal noted that the Committee of Creditors (COC) had directed the Resolution Professional to seek an extension of 60 days beyond the initial 270 days in the CIRP. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by the Appellant's counsel, decided that the appeal could be resolved without issuing notice to the COC. The Tribunal further examined the records and arguments presented by the Appellant's counsel. It was observed that the Adjudicating Authority had extended the time for concluding the CIRP by 40 days, but failed to exclude the period of judicial intervention spent in pursuing the extension application. The Appellant's counsel highlighted that without excluding the period of judicial intervention, the extension granted would be rendered ineffective. Consequently, the Tribunal found it justifiable to exclude the periods from 21st October, 2020, to 9th November, 2020, and from 12th January, 2021, to 3rd February, 2021, while calculating the CIRP period. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the exclusion of these periods for CIRP calculation purposes, thereby disposing of the appeal. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment focused on the exclusion of specific periods consumed in legal proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority for the calculation of the CIRP period. By considering the necessity of excluding the periods of judicial intervention, the Tribunal ensured a just and effective resolution in the context of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
|
