9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating Authority while having noticed the order dated 18.10.2023 has concluded that by allowing the extension of 30 days and excluding the period of pendency of the IA filed by RP for seeking extension. There is no infirmity in the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting IA No.1420 of 2024. There is no merit in the Appeal - appeal dismissed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) And [ Arun Baroka ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Jain, Ms. Divya Sharma, Mr. Manan Jain, Mr. Siddhant Jain, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Ms. Roopali Lakhotia, Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Mr. Akhil Nene, Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocates for R-1. Mr. V. Seshagiri, Ms. Ananya Kukreti, Mr. Ankit Bhushan, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Harshit Agarwal, Mr. A. Gupta, Advocates for SRA JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN , J. This Appeal by a Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor M/s Drish Shoes Ltd. has been filed challenging the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Court I) in IA No.1420 of 2024. IA No.1420 of 2024 was filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.374 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 23.02.2024, which was also challenged by the Appellant before the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal, which too was dismissed on 13.05.2024. (viii) On 10.06.2024, the Appellant filed IA No.1420 of 2024 seeking direction to declare 19th CoC meeting and all decision taken thereof including approval of Plan as illegal due to expiration of CIRP period on 30.06.2023, which Application was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 01.07.2024. Aggrieved by which order, this Appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant; Shri Krishnendu Datta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1; Shri V. Seshagiri, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2; and Shri Harshit Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for Successful Resolution Applicant ( SRA ). 4. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority having passed an order on 10.06.2023 granting extension of 20 days in the CIRP, i.e. upto 30.06.2023, which was with a rider that no further extension may be granted, the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s already resolved to seek further extension of 30 days for completion of process beyond 30.06.2023. In pursuance of which, RP has filed an IA before the Adjudicating Authority being IA No.1529 of 2023 seeking extension of 30 days. It is undisputed that the said IA was allowed on 18.10.2023. The order dated 18.10.2023 passed in IA No.1529 of 2023 is as follows: IA No. 1529/2023 The present application has been filed under Section 12(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on behalf of the Resolution Professional seeking extension of CIRP period by 30 days beyond the period of 330 days. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that 330 days period of CIRP has expired on 30.06.2023. The said extension of 30 days was approved by the CoC in its 18th meeting dated 29.06.2023 in Item No. 14 with 100% voting rights. The Resolution plan has already been approved by the CoC on 27.07.2023 and the present application was e-filed on 29.06.2023. Keeping in view the statement made by learned counsel for the applicant and the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application, this application is allowed. However, the extention of 30 days beyond 330 days period is granted from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se also the period was extended and on the said ground, it was held that since the Resolution Plan falls within the said period, the argument was rejected. In paragraph 109, following was concluded: 109. When we look into the order dated 11.01.2022, as extracted above, it is clear that exclusion of 60 days time was granted from 24.03.2021 to 22.05.2021 meaning thereby that 60 days exclusion was allowed, and when we add this 60 days from after 13.06.2021, it goes to 12.08.2021. It appears that it is due to the aforesaid reasons a rectification application was filed by RP being I.A. No. 1563/2022, praying for exclusion of further two days time to complete the process and by order dated 20.06.2022, in addition to 60 days exclusion allowed by order dated 11.01.2022 two days further time was allowed which period clearly covered the date on which Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC i.e., 13.08.2021. The Form H although has noticed that application for exclusion is pending, but order dated 11.01.222 and 20.06.2022 were not referred to in the Form H and when we read Form H along with the orders dated 11.01.2022 and 20.06.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, granting exclusion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
