2023 (2) TMI 102 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking Exclusion of the Period lapsed, in regard to the operation of the Status quo Order dated 25.04.2022, from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - HELD THAT - There is no indication in the Impugned Order, as to the fact, that the Additional Affidavit filed by the Respondent / Petitioner, therein, was considered in the manner projected from the point of view of the Respondent / Resolution Professional, this Tribunal, at this stage, simpliciter, without expressing any opinion, on the Merits of the matter, and also, not delving in deep, sets aside the Impugned Order dated 09.01.2023 passed in IA/IBC/1128/CHE/2022 in CP/IB/85/CHE/2021, by the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai), in the interest of Justice, and remits back the matter in IA/IBC/1128/CHE/2022 in CP/IB/85/CHE/2021 to the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai), for passing necessary Orders De Novo in the matter, of course, after Hearing, the Respondent / Resolution Professional, by providing an opportunity of Hearing, by adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice, and to pass Just, Fair and the reasoned Speaking Order, in Qualitative and Quantitative terms, adverting to the Relief Sought for in the Subject Matter in issue and this Exercise, shall be carried out by the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai), within Two Weeks, from the date of passing of this Order, of course, uninfluenced, untrammelled with any of the Observations, made by this Tribunal. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exclusion of time in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
2. Consideration of additional exclusion period beyond the initial request.
3. Delay in pronouncing the order affecting the CIRP timeline.
4. Dissatisfaction with the impugned order and seeking a fresh decision.
5. Lack of proper consideration of respondent's submissions by the Adjudicating Authority.
6. Remittal of the matter for a fresh decision by the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The Adjudicating Authority granted exclusion of 60 days in the CIRP, allowing the process to continue until 15.01.2023. The Appellant challenges this decision due to the delay in pronouncing the order, effectively consuming the entire exclusion period.

Issue 2: The Respondent sought an additional exclusion period of 60 days beyond the initial 170 days requested. This request was based on an affidavit filed citing specific periods for exclusion due to various adjudications and status quo orders.

Issue 3: The Appellant highlights dissatisfaction with the delay in the Adjudicating Authority's decision, which impacted the CIRP timeline. The impugned order was passed on 09.01.2023 but made available on 17.01.2023, leading to the Appellant's discontent.

Issue 4: Due to dissatisfaction with the impugned order, the Appellant seeks a fresh decision, proposing a period of 230 days from the setting aside of the order. The Appellant also requests restraint on the Resolution Professional from proceeding with the Liquidation Application.

Issue 5: The Appellant argues that the Respondent's submissions were not adequately considered by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to a lack of proper perspective in the impugned order. This lack of consideration necessitates a fresh decision on the matter.

Issue 6: Considering the shortcomings in the Adjudicating Authority's decision-making process, the Tribunal sets aside the impugned order and remits the matter back for a fresh decision. This remittal aims to ensure a just and fair outcome, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to remit the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision aims to rectify the shortcomings in the previous order and ensure a fair and just resolution in line with the principles of natural justice.