9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiated on 25th September, 2019 can not be accepted. The Appellant had admittedly filed claim before the IRP/RP of which major part was admitted by the IRP/RP. Inability to quantify the Operational Debt, as claimed when again, be no reason or obstruction in filing of the Appeal against the Impugned Order. Appeal is time barred and is dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1334 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2020 - A.I.S. Cheema, A.B. Singh, Judicial Member And Kanthi Narahari, Technical Member For the Appellant : Anshuman Sharma and Vishesh Dhundia, Advs. For the Respondent : Manmeet Singh, A. Robin Frey, Ms. Anahita Gaind, Arun Katpalia, Sr. Adv. Mahesh Agarwal, Arshit Anand, Arnav Behari, Kauser Hussain and Ms. Diks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Appellant submitted claim to the Resolution Professional in Requisite Form. Resolution Professional had published list of admitted claims on 08th April, 2019. The admitted claim of the Appellant as Corporate Debtor was to the extent of ₹ 2,78,81,825 out of ₹ 3,19,36,312. 3. The Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 3 Adani Power Ltd. claimed to be accepted by the Adjudicating Authority on 24th June, 2019, which plan has been challenged in the Present Appeal. 4. The Appeal has been filed on 11-11-2019 after about 150 days of the Impugned Order. 5. In the Appeal, in Para 6 the Appellant claims that the Appellant did not have knowledge of the Impugned Order dated 24th June, 2019 and came to know about the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. 7. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the sides. On 18th February, 2020 when the Parties were heard regarding limitation of this Appeal, the proceeding which we had dictated is as under: We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant with regard to condonation of delay Application IA No. 3811 of 2019. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the contents of the Application as well as he is referring to the proceedings which were pending before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) to submit that the Appellant was obstructed due to pendency of those proceedings to calculate his claims and thus after the Resolution Plan was approved took time to file the Appeal as the said proceedings before CERC were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone on to file Diary No. 19917 with a Written Submission of more than 3 pages and added a list of documents running from Pages 18 to 162. 9. The Appellant has relied on Judgement in the matter of Principal Director General of Income Tax (supra). Perusal of that judgment shows that in that Appeal under Provisions of the IBC, Demerger Scheme was noticed and discussed and it was observed in Paragraphs 66 to 68 as under: 66. Thus, if the impugned approved scheme dated October 20, 2016 is treated to be an approved Resolution Plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the I and B Code , it being against the provisions of the existing laws and being in violative of sub-section (2) of clause (e) of Section 30 of the I and B Code is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uously trying to refer to the facts due to which proceedings went before the CERC and the issues which were before CERC . The argument is that giving the circumstances Appellant was bogged down by various regulatory proceedings against it and that it was responsibility of the Respondent No. 2/RP but diligently take up contingent liability of Corporate Debtor before the Committee of Creditors. The Appellant is trying to say that Respondents were acting in tendon and ulterior designs of the Respondent has led to the passing of the Resolution Plan. 12. As the Appeal itself shows in Para 6 of the Appeal Memo, the Appellant is aware of the period of limitation of 30 days under section 61 of IBC and also the legal position that this Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he most within 45 days from the date of the knowledge, the Present Appeal is apparently time barred. The ground raised in the Appeal Para 6 that during the pendency of the said proceedings before CERC the Appellant was not in a position to quantify the Operational Debt and do so only when the proceeding was initiated on 25th September, 2019 can not be accepted. The Appellant had admittedly filed claim before the IRP/RP of which major part was admitted by the IRP/RP. Inability to quantify the Operational Debt, as claimed when again, be no reason or obstruction in filing of the Appeal against the Impugned Order. The other contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that because of the pendency of the proceedings before CERC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
