2023 (9) TMI 1383 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Rejection of application for extension of 60 days time from the date of expiry of CIRP for allowing the CoC to consider and vote upon approval of Resolution Plan - rejection on the ground that Appellate Tribunal can only extend the same - rejection also on the ground that Appellant before the Hon ble Supreme Court was granted liberty of such extension and it cannot be granted to Resolution professional now. HELD THAT - This Tribunal by its order passed in GOVIND PRASAD TODI, SIDDHARTHA TODI VERSUS SATYA NARAYAN GUDDETI (LIQUIDATOR/ ERSTWHILE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF AJANTA OFFSET PACKAGING LIMITED) , CANARA BANK, CORPORATION BANK, STATE BANK OF INDIA, EXIM BANK, TODI INVESTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., VINAYAK DEALERS PVT. LTD., SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LTD., EDCL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., AMRITVANI EXIM PVT. LTD. 2023 (2) TMI 486 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI has extended the CIRP for a period of 90 days which order was challenged by Govind Prasad Todi and Siddhartha Todi before the Hon ble Supreme Court in GOVIND PRASAD TODI ANR. VERSUS SATYA NARAYAN GUDDETI ORS. 2023 (3) TMI 1407 - SC ORDER , where the Hon ble Supreme Court held After arguing the matter for some time, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants seeks leave to withdraw this appeal with a liberty that if occasion arises, he may be permitted to apply for extension of time. The liberty was granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court to apply for extension of time. Extension of time in the CIRP has to be applied by the Resolution Professional who is the official conducting the CIRP and further when CoC has instructed the Resolution Professional to seek extension of 60 days, the application could not have been rejected only on the ground that Govind Prasad Todi and Siddhartha Todi who were granted liberty, who have not filed the application. The liberty was granted to Govind Prasad Todi and Siddhartha Todi to also file application for extension but the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court does not precluded the Resolution Professional to make application for extension of time. In the facts of the present case, when in the CIRP plans have already been received which have to be voted upon, the ends of justice shall be served in extending the period of CIRP for 60 days. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the rejection of an application for extension of time in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by the Adjudicating Authority, based on the grounds that only the Appellate Tribunal had the authority to extend the time. The Resolution Professional filed the application on the instruction of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to allow consideration and voting on the Resolution Plan.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application for extension of 60 days from the expiry of CIRP, citing that the Appellate Tribunal had previously extended the time till a certain date. An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn with liberty granted to apply for an extension. However, the liberty was granted to specific individuals, not the Resolution Professional who filed the application.

2. The Resolution Professional filed the application on the CoC's instruction, as two plans were already received and needed to be voted upon. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on the technicality of the individuals granted liberty by the Supreme Court, rather than considering the CoC's decision.

3. The Appellate Tribunal had previously extended the CIRP for 90 days, which was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted liberty to specific individuals to apply for an extension, but it did not restrict the Resolution Professional from seeking an extension.

4. The judgment emphasized that the Resolution Professional, being the official conducting the CIRP, was authorized to apply for an extension of time, especially when instructed by the CoC. The rejection solely based on the individuals granted liberty by the Supreme Court was deemed unjust, considering the plans awaiting voting.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's order and granting the extension of 60 days from the date of the judgment. The decision aimed to serve the ends of justice, especially with pending Resolution Plans that required voting within the extended period.

This summary highlights the key issues, arguments, and decisions made in the judgment regarding the rejection of the application for extension of time in the CIRP.