9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1368 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking extension of time for implementation of Resolution Plan - first submission of Appellant is that the order does not have any reason for exclusion of the time - HELD THAT - The exclusion has been sought for principally on the ground that I.A No. 125 of 2022 remains pending from 17.01.2022 to 22.03.2022 due to which period need to be excluded since the prayer made in the Application I.A No. 125 of 2022 was not granted by the Adjudicating Authority. When we look into the facts cumulatively, including the reasons given in the Application I.A. No. 686 of 2022 and the facts noticed by the Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be said that there is no reason given in the order of the Adjudicating Authority for granting exclusion - thus there is ample reason in the order for granting exclusion of the period. The second submission of Shri Vikas Mehta Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant is that Application I.A No. 686 of 2022 itself was not maintainable since the Application was filed in a disposed of Application I.A No. 125 of 2022 - HELD THAT - The mere fact that in I.A No. 686 of 2022, it was mentioned that I.A No. 686 of 2022 is in I.A No. 125 of 2022 in C.P (IB) No. 2205/MB/C-I/2019 does not make it non-maintainable. The mere mention of I.A 125 of 2022 which was already disposed of does not take away the Application I.A 686 of 2022 and the prayers made therein which were separate prayers as noted above. We, thus, reject the submission of Shri Vikas Mehta, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that I.A 686 of 2022 was not maintainable. Whether the extension could be granted beyond 90 180 days or not? - HELD THAT - Present is a case where the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has not granted extension of any time rather it allowed exclusion of the time i.e. exclusion of the period which was taken in disposal of I.A 125 of 2022. As far as the submission that the decision was taken by the lenders committee, as noted above, extension of time be sought by the Applicant, suffice it to say that in the same meeting, it was noticed that Application I.A No. 686 of 2022 has already been filed for exclusion of the time. The said observation in the lenders committee meeting dated 28.03.2022 shall not detract the prayers made in the Application I.A No. 686 of 2022 nor that has any effect on order which has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority excluding the period. The last submission made by Shri Vikas Mehta is that conditions of the Resolution Plan has not been fulfilled - HELD THAT - The Application I.A No. 686 of 2022 was filed only for praying for exclusion of the period from 17.01.2022 to 22.03.2022. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of Application I.A No. 125 of 2022 by the Adjudicating Authority 2. Filing of Application I.A No. 686 of 2022 seeking exclusion of time 3. Maintaining the Application I.A No. 686 of 2022 4. Granting exclusion of time by the Adjudicating Authority 5. Challenge to the order by the Appellant 6. Justification for exclusion of time 7. Fulfillment of Resolution Plan conditions Analysis: 1. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed Application I.A No. 125 of 2022, leading to the filing of Application I.A No. 686 of 2022 seeking exclusion of time. The Resolution Applicant prayed for exclusion from 17.01.2022 to 22.03.2022 due to pending conditions precedent fulfillment. The Adjudicating Authority granted exclusion of 65 days, extending the 'Effective Date' to 25.05.2022. 2. The Appellant challenged the order, arguing that the exclusion lacked reasoning and was filed in a disposed of Application. However, the Adjudicating Authority provided sufficient justification for the exclusion based on the pending nature of I.A No. 125 of 2022 and the potential hindrance to the Corporate Debtor's revival without exclusion. 3. The Appellant contended that I.A No. 686 of 2022 was not maintainable due to its relation to the disposed of I.A No. 125 of 2022. The Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the prayers and nature of the two applications were distinct, allowing for the maintainability of I.A No. 686 of 2022. 4. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to grant exclusion of time was based on the necessity to prevent the automatic withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, ensuring the Corporate Debtor's revival. The Authority's reasoning and the Resolution Applicant's justifications supported the exclusion, aligning with the spirit of the insolvency code. 5. Challenges to the order included assertions that the extension beyond the initial 270 days was impermissible. However, the exclusion of time did not constitute an extension but a necessary measure to facilitate the Resolution Plan's successful implementation, as supported by the lenders and Resolution Applicant. 6. The Resolution Applicant's plea for exclusion was deemed essential to overcome obstacles in fulfilling conditions precedent, as detailed in the expenses application. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to exclude the period was crucial to prevent hindrances to the Corporate Debtor's revival, aligning with the objectives of the insolvency process. 7. The Tribunal concluded that the exclusion of time was justified, dismissing the Appeal based on the sufficient reasoning provided by the Adjudicating Authority. The focus remained on ensuring the successful implementation of the Resolution Plan and the revival of the Corporate Debtor, underscoring the importance of timely and effective insolvency proceedings.
|
