Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1180 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking extension of four weeks’ time for making payment - Appellant failed to adhere to its commitment in Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that even after extension granted by Adjudicating Authority till 31.10.2021 the Appellant could not make the payment and filed another Application No.115 of 2021 for granting extension of 30 days for making payment, which came to be rejected, giving rise to this Appeal. The Application No.115 of 2021 has been rejected by the impugned order on 24th November, 2021. The Adjudicating Authority has referred to its order dated 12th April, 2021 and has observed that Appellant has failed to comply its order dated 12th April, 2021 and last opportunity was granted till 31.10.2021, hence, it has failed to comply the order and conduct of the Successful Resolution Applicant is completely lacking in its bona fide - There is no dispute that Appellant failed to adhere to its commitment in Resolution Plan and also failed to comply order dated 12th April, 2021 and 20th September, 2021. The extension of 30 days was sought by the Appellant by its Application dated 29th October, 2021. The Adjudicating Authority ought to have adverted to the grounds and reasons given in the Application to find out as to whether there is any ground to grant any extension of time of 30 days as prayed for. It is well settled that time line in IBC proceedings has its salutary value and Resolution Applicant has to adhere to its commitment as made in the Resolution Plan, when it is approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Whether Adjudicating Authority erred in exercising its jurisdiction in refusing to grant extension by 30 days as prayed by Resolution Applicant or not? - HELD THAT:- The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED & ANR., KUNDAN CARE PRODUCTS LIMITED VERSUS MR AMIT GUPTA AND ORS. AND SEROCO LIGHTING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS RAVI KAPOOR RP FOR ARYA FILAMENTS PRIVATE LIMTIED & ORS. [2021 (9) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT] thus, does not support the submission of learned Counsel for the State Bank of India that Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to extend the time for complying the financial obligations in the Resolution Plan. The facts and materials on record as noted clearly indicate that although the Appellant had failed to make payment as per Resolution Plan, but it is not a case that efforts has not been made by the Appellant to make payment. Admittedly, payment of ₹ 15 crores out of ₹ 45 crores to the Financial Creditor has already been made apart from other payments - by granting 30 days’ time to Appellant to comply its all financial obligations in Resolution Plan and make payment of balance of ₹ 30 crores shall not cause any prejudice to Financial Creditors, who have already been denied the said payment for a long period of time. In event, the Appellant is unable to make the payment as prayed for, it shall be open to proceed with the liquidation, no option being left thereafter. The order dated 24th November, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority is set aside and grant 30 days’ time to the Appellant from today to make the payment of balance amount of ₹ 30 crores to the Financial Creditors on or before 20th February, 2022, failing which, it shall be open to proceed with the liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Appeal allowed.
|