2019 (9) TMI 1218 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Time limit for Resolution Process - Relevant time for appointment of Resolution Professional - exclusion of 35 days of delay in appointing the Resolution Professional in place of the Interim Resolution Professional and the period during which different applications were pending - HELD THAT - In the present case, as the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process could not proceed in the absence of Resolution Professional for 35 days the case of Appellant being covered by decision of this Appellate Tribunal in QUINN LOGISTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS MACK SOFT TECH PVT. LTD., MOHD. SABIR PARVEZ AND MR. M.L. JAIN, (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL) 2018 (6) TMI 904 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI , we allow the prayer as made in this appeal and exclude the period of 35 days for the purpose of counting 180 days or 270 days of Resolution Process - We also exclude the period of pendency of 18 days during which the application remained pending before the Adjudicating Authority. Thereby, we exclude the total period of 53 days for the purpose of counting 180 days or 270 days. Part of the impugned order dated 30th April, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority is set aside - rest part of the impugned order is affirmed - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Exclusion of delay in appointing Resolution Professional and period of pending applications.

Analysis:
The Appellant, as the Resolution Professional of a company, filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking exclusion of a 35-day delay in appointing the Resolution Professional and the period during which various applications were pending. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the prayer, leading to the present case. The Appellant argued that the delay in appointing a Resolution Professional resulted in a delay in the resolution process, potentially leading to liquidation if not excluded. The issue was previously addressed by the Appellate Tribunal in "Quinn Logistics India Pvt. Ltd." where it was established that certain periods could be excluded from the total resolution process time limit of 270 days under justified reasons and unforeseen circumstances.

The Appellate Tribunal outlined various grounds for excluding intervening periods, such as when the Resolution Professional is not functioning for reasons like removal, or when the resolution process is stayed by a court of law. In the present case, as the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process could not proceed due to the absence of a Resolution Professional for 35 days, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the prayer to exclude this period along with the 18-day pendency period of applications. This exclusion totaled 53 days for the purpose of counting the 180 or 270 days of the Resolution Process. The Tribunal set aside part of the impugned order while affirming the rest, disposing of the appeal with the mentioned observations and directions.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of excluding delays in appointing a Resolution Professional and periods of pending applications in the context of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The decision was based on established principles and previous precedents, allowing for the exclusion of certain periods under specific circumstances to ensure the resolution process's efficiency within the prescribed time limits.