Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (3) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1261 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking acceptance of claim by RP - claim so submitted was not within the stipulated time - HELD THAT:- 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 on or before 08.03.2021 (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 Utility (IU).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, that too after the stipulated time so provided for submitting claims, in that event, the Resolution Plans can never get materialized, more so, when CIRP is to be completed in a time bound manner - Further, if the Resolution Applicants have infused money or have taken financial assistance from other sources, in that event, they will have to approach for enhancement of the loan/infusion of money, which practically takes a longer time and by the time they would complete all these processes, the period of CIRP will be over. 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 be 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" - in the instant matter, the RP allowed not only further 90 days but has also allowed another 68 days of lockdown period so as to facilitate all the creditors to file their claims. Application dismissed.
|