9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently, the confirmation of the Applicant as the RP was put for vote during the 5th CoC meeting held on 04.05.2021, which was duly approved by 68.87% of the CoC. The appointment of the Applicant as the RP was eventually confirmed by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 09.06.2021. This bench, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, is satisfied that the exclusion being sought by RP is bona fide and the same needs to be granted. Hence, the period between 06.12.2020 to 02.01.2021 (27 days), 17.03.2021 to 30.04.2021 (44 days), 01.05.2021 to 31.05.2021 (30 days), 01.05.2021 to 05.07.2021 (5 days excluding the overlap period), on account of restrictions imposed by the Noida po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the Applicant as the Resolution Professional. The same was confirmed by the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal, dated 09.06.2021. 3. The Applicant states that on account of Covid-19, an ensuing slew of restrictions have been imposed in New Delhi, where the Corporate Debtor's registered office is located and in Uttar Pradesh, where the project site at SC-01/A2, Sector 79, Noida ( Project Site ) and corporate office in Sector 127, Noida is located. The details of various restrictions and lockdowns imposed by the Noida Police, the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Government of the NCT of Delhi ( Government of Delhi ), are set out below: a. Between the period from 06.12.2020 to 02.01.2021 the Noida Police imposed restriction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 136 days, which are being prayed for exclusion. 5. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to take cognizance of delays caused due to Covid-19 and by exercising powers vested in it by virtue of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, passed an order dated 23.03.2020, in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 observing the following: ... period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.ef 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings. 6. Subsequently, on 27.04.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, again took judicial notice, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs constitute 50.38% of the CoC, on account of being dissatisfied with the IRP, voted against his confirmation as RP during the 1st CoC meeting held on 02.12.2020. Only a minority of 45.35% of the CoC voted in favour of appointing the IRP as the RP of the Corporate Debtor, falling short of the 66% threshold. Subsequently, the confirmation of the Applicant as the RP was put for vote during the 5th CoC meeting held on 04.05.2021, which was duly approved by 68.87% of the CoC. The appointment of the Applicant as the RP was eventually confirmed by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 09.06.2021. 9. This bench, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, is satisfied that the exclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
