9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporate Debtor which is main object of the IB Code, more so, when CIRP is to be completed in a time bound manner. If such claim is accepted, then the Resolution Applicants have to make corrections in their plans, that apart, RP has to make corrections in the IM and its report, correction in the stakeholders list, etc., for which RP has to take permission from this Adjudicating Authority, which may further delay the CIRP. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta Ors, [ 2018 (10) TMI 312 - SUPREME COURT] unequivocally held that the entire time period within which the CIRP ought to be completed is strictly mandatory in nature and cannot he extended. It relied on the primary objective of the Code, which is to ensure a timely resolution process for a CD and principles of statutory interpretation to hold that the literal language of section 12 mandates strict adherence to the time frame it lays down. To enable this adherence to the outer time limit provided in the Code, the court also held that the model timeline provided in Regulation 40A of the CIRP Regulations should be followed as closely as possible . Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the statements and allegations made by the Applicant in the application. He filed his reply, stating that 3.1 no claim was received even on or before the ninetieth day of the insolvency commencement date viz. 17.3.2020 i.e. 90 days from 19.12.2019 as stipulated in Regulation 12(2) of the Regulations. The applicant has admittedly filed its claim for the first time only on 15.09.2020, i.e., after more than 8 months from the last date for filing claims in the CIRP. 3.2 That the applicant has not been able to explain the delay in filing of the claim anywhere in the application. Moreover, the applicant has conveniently tried to take shelter and conjure up an excuse of the lockdown period on account of COVID-19. 3.3 That the ninetieth day from the insolvency process commencement date was 17.03.2020 and there is no dispute that the lockdown was imposed only on 25.03.2020. Even after the relaxed lockdown period from 01.06.2020, the applicant has only filed its claim on 15.09.2020. Thus, the assistance of Regulation 40C of the Regulations may not be applicable in the case of the applicant as timelines of the activity of submission of the claims at least within 90 days of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is matter of record that RP has already provided Information Memorandum (IM) to Resolution Applicant on 04.07.2020, where applicant has lodged her claim on 15.09.2020. 6. The Applicant has cited various case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble NCLAT and Hon'ble Principal Bench, there is no dispute with regard to those case laws. However, each case has its own merits, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Resolution Plan has already been received by the CoC as apprised by the RP and it is at the final stage of approval of the CoC (as per RP). At this belated stage, if such types of applications are allowed, the Resolution Plans already received by the CoC from the prospective Resolution Applicants, may get failed, as those are filed on the basis of Information Memorandum (IM). The prospective Resolution Applicants submitted their Resolution Plan on the basis of their financial capacity and availability of funds. There is every likelihood that, if the claims of the different creditors are being accepted in a phase manner and/or on such belated stage, that too after the stipulated time, so provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hdraw their plan, as it will be a burden with other huge claims of the creditors, which they might have not planned earlier, while giving the resolution plan based on the IM. Thus, under such situation, the Corporate Debtor may be pushed for liquidation. 10. The Hon'ble NCLAT, in the matter of Binani Industries Limited vs. Bank of Baroda Anr. held that the objective of the I B Code is Resolution. The purpose of resolution is for maximization of value of the assets of the 'Corporate Debtor' and thereby for all creditors. It is not maximization of value for 'stakeholders' or 'a set of stakeholders' such as creditors and to promote entrepreneur ship, availability of credit and balance the interests. The first order objective is 'resolution'. The second order objective is maximization of value of assets of the 'Corporate Debtor' and the third order objective is promoting entrepreneur ship, availability of credit and balancing the interest. This order of objective is sacrosanct . The performance of the Code in terms of these objectives will ultimately show up in overall growth of the economy of the country. Based on the above objectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
