9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 325 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking extension of period of PPIRP of Kethos Tiles Private Limited for 60 days after the last date of PPIRP i.e., 03.05.5024 - Section 54C of the IBC, 2016 r.w. Rule 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process) Rules, 2021 - HELD THAT - A plain reading of Section 54D of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 reveals that a time period of 120 days from the date of commencement of PPIRP is provided in the Act. As per Section 54D(3), if no Resolution Plan is approved by CoC the RP shall file an Application for Termination of PPIRP. Contrary to the Section Resolution Professional in the present matter has filed an Application seeking extension of time. The present Application is Rejected, PPIRP initiated vide order dated 04.01.2024 is hereby terminated and Corporate Debtor is released from rigor of law. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Extension of PPIRP period for a Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Detailed Analysis: The Tribunal received an application seeking an extension of the Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) for a Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional requested a 60-day extension beyond the 120-day period of PPIRP, as the CoC had passed a resolution to that effect. However, no Resolution Plan had been approved by the CoC within the stipulated time frame. The relevant provision, Section 54D of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, mandates the completion of PPIRP within 120 days. If no Resolution Plan is approved within this period, the RP is required to file for termination of PPIRP, contrary to seeking an extension. The Tribunal noted that the RP had not complied with the statutory directions outlined in Sections 54D and 54K (11), (12) of the Code. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the termination of the PPIRP initiated earlier for the Corporate Debtor. It was observed that the RP had not fulfilled their duties as mandated by the law. The Registry was directed to inform the relevant authorities for further action. As a result, the application for extension was rejected, and the Corporate Debtor was released from the insolvency process. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions governing insolvency processes and the responsibilities of Resolution Professionals. It underscores the significance of timely compliance and the consequences of failing to meet the legal requirements in insolvency proceedings. The decision emphasizes the strict adherence to the timelines specified under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the repercussions of non-compliance with the statutory framework. The ruling serves as a reminder of the obligations of all parties involved in insolvency resolution processes and the need for strict adherence to the legal provisions to ensure the effective functioning of the insolvency regime.
|
