9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1646 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking extension of period of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by 90 days with effect from 04.06.2019 as per the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - It is convincing that case for extension is made out as Resolution might be possible - the application succeeds and the extension is granted for a period of 90 days beyond 03.06.2019. Rejection of claims by the Resolution Professional - HELD THAT - The RP has placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon hie Appellate Tribunal in the case of DR. VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL VERSUS M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD. 2019 (2) TMI 316 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI , and according to the said order no duplicate claim would be maintainable for the same set of claim and default. It is pertinent to mention that the claims of the applicant have already been admitted against the principal borrower - the present application is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. List on 11.07.2019.
Issues:
1. Application for extending the period of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by 90 days. 2. Application for condoning the delay in filing the claim before the Resolution Professional. 3. Application filed against the rejection of claims by the Resolution Professional. Analysis: 1. The first issue pertains to an application seeking an extension of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period by 90 days beyond the initial 180 days. The application was supported by the resolution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) passed in its 3rd meeting, authorizing the Resolution Professional (RP) to file the application. The reasons for seeking the extension were related to the delay in certain procedural steps required for the resolution process. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, granted the extension as the case for extension was deemed plausible based on the circumstances presented. 2. The second issue involves an application for condoning the delay in filing a claim before the RP. The RP acknowledged that there were precedents for condoning such delays and assured that the claim would be considered without rejection on the ground of delay. The Tribunal disposed of this application with directions to consider the applicant's claim within a specified timeframe. 3. The third issue concerns an application filed against the rejection of claims by the RP. The applicant, Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., challenged the rejection of its claims, citing a precedent where the claims were already admitted in a similar case. The RP relied on a specific order from the Appellate Tribunal, highlighting that no duplicate claim would be maintainable for the same set of claims and default. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the claims were already admitted against the principal borrower in a previous case, making the present application not maintainable. In summary, the Tribunal addressed various applications related to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, including granting an extension, condoning a delay in filing a claim, and dismissing an application against the rejection of claims based on established precedents and legal principles governing insolvency proceedings.
|
