9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Resolution Plan. Vide 08th CoC meeting held on 10th March 2022, there was discussion and voting on the Resolution Plan, but the Resolution Applicant itself suggested that in order to avoid any confusion and also to avoid any potential litigation going forward, it was requested to consider the other variant of the plan, which related to assets of the Corporate Debtor alone and no reference to any assignment. In the present matter, there is no concrete Resolution Plan and CoC is not in position to take any specific decision thereon. Further, it is also to be mentioned herein the context that already vide order dated 07th September 2021, the extension of 90 days was granted to the applicant. Apart that, the applicant has also sought e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated against the Corporate Debtor and Mr. Sanjeev Ahuja (IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00028/2016-2017/10061) was appointed as the interim resolution professional. The first CoC meeting was held on 26.03.2021. The Period of CIRP had expired on 15.03.2022. 3. It is submitted that the applicant filed an application bearing IA No. 3897/ND/2021 seeking extension of 90 days for completion of CIRP and the same was allowed vide order dated 07.09.2021 extending the period for further 90 days i.e. 26.12.2021. Subsequently, IA No. 5325/ND/2021 was filed by the Applicant seeking exclusion of 49 days i.e. from 19.04.2021 to 7.06.2021 due to the lockdown imposed by the government and the said application was allowed vide order dated 22.11.201(sic) granting time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of some COC members. Since the IBC law is not clear and does not address the assignment aspect, COC decided to avoid any confusions and challenges going forward and accordingly, COC has unanimously agreed to consider the plain vanilla variant of the same Resolution Applicant as requested by the RA himself, and seek necessary approvals, for which COC members need some additional time. All the COC members are PSU banks and have a set procedure to seek the approvals/mandates, hence the request for 30 days/1 month. 6. From the bare perusal of the above said resolution, it is apparent that no concrete Resolution Plan was submitted and still the CoC was in dilemma, whether it should be approved or not, as the authorized office of the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIRP proceedings could not be completed in that particular period despite extension exclusion of period as stated above. Moreover, the resolution was passed on 14th March 2022, whereas 330 days expired on 15th March 2022. Further, the Resolution Plan was only received few days prior to 14.03.2022, that too on behalf of single Resolution Applicant, which also serious suspicion about the conduct of the proceedings. Even, on that day, no such definitely decision could be taken by the CoC. 7. In view of the above said facts, this Tribunal is of the view that further extension of 30 days would not serve the purpose, accordingly, the request for extension of 30 days stands declined. 8. Consequently, the present application i.e., IA No. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
