2022 (8) TMI 1478 - SCH - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking extension of time by 60 days to make the deposit - Appellant, an Operational Creditor contends that the impugned order is prejudicia to the right of the Appellant to receive the amounts payable to the Appellant under the approved Resolution Plan, within the timelines thereunder - HELD THAT - Three months time granted to the Resolution Applicant (Respondent No. 1) to pay the residual balance amount in the designated account along with overdue interest, has expired. No payment has been made. The appeal has, thus, become infructuous and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of time for payment by the Resolution Applicant.
2. Validity of impugned order.
3. Prejudice to the rights of the Operational Creditor.
4. Dismissal of the appeal due to non-payment by the Resolution Applicant.

Extension of Time for Payment by the Resolution Applicant:
The case involved a Resolution Applicant seeking an extension of time to remit the residual balance amount along with overdue interest. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal granted three months for payment, emphasizing the continuation of projects and the need to keep the Bank Guarantee alive. The Tribunal's decision superseded the Adjudicating Authority's observations regarding the Monitoring Committee's leniency towards the Applicant.

Validity of Impugned Order:
The impugned order stemmed from an appeal filed by the Resolution Applicant against the Adjudicating Authority's decision to grant a two-week extension for payment. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Applicant's appeal due to non-compliance with the payment deadline. The Tribunal's directives regarding the Resolution Plan's implementation and the Monitoring Committee's actions were deemed essential for justice.

Prejudice to the Rights of the Operational Creditor:
The Operational Creditor raised concerns about the impugned order affecting their rights to receive payments under the approved Resolution Plan within stipulated timelines. The Court acknowledged the Operational Creditor's position but ultimately dismissed the appeal due to the Resolution Applicant's failure to make the required payments within the extended timeframe.

Dismissal of the Appeal Due to Non-Payment by the Resolution Applicant:
Despite the Resolution Applicant being granted three months to fulfill payment obligations, no payments were made within the specified period. Consequently, the Supreme Court deemed the appeal infructuous and dismissed it. The Court directed the National Company Law Tribunal to proceed further with the matter in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with Resolution Plan obligations.