Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (5) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1557 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of corporate insolvency resolution process - expiry of initiation of CIR process - Resolution Plan which has been originally failed for want of requisite voting percentage as required under Sub-Section (4) of Section 30 of the Code when put up for reconsideration obtained the required voting share so as to approve the resolution plan by the CoC - The last CoC meeting as per records available seems to have held on 21st December 2017. The extended period of CIR process of 270 days here in the case in hand expired on 25-12-2017. Whether this Adjudicating Authority has empowered to extend the time limit prescribed under section 12 of the Code?. If not whether this Adjudicating Authority has power to exclude the duration of continuation of stay order of Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal and the period rendered for the disposal of interim applications by this Bench during the CIRP? - Held that: - a Tribunal in its discretion from time to time in the interest of justice and for reasons to be recorded, enlarge such period, even though the period fixed by or under these rules or granted by the Tribunal may have expired. This is a case in which so many issues came up for consideration before us during the period of CIRP. The CoC has changed the IRP thereby there is change of IRP. During the consideration of the only one plan of the resolution applicant an amended Ordinance was notified laying down certain disqualification to promoter directors of a company like the promoter in the case in hand Extension of time limit - Held that: - In Surendra Trading Company Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 1566 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in answering a question as to whether the time limit prescribed in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for admitting and rejecting a petition for initiating insolvency resolution process is mandatory. It has been held that Extension of time may be allowed if it is needed to be given for circumstances which are exceptional occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended - The period of CIRP as prescribed under section 12 of the Code cannot be extended in the facts of the case. Whether reconsideration of vote in respect of approval of the resolution plan already finalised on 22-12-2017 is permissible under law? - Held that: - the basic premises on which l&B code is built is that on failure of the Company in discharging its dues, its debt is to be restructured, for continuing the Company as a going concern, by giving the Company to any person who is found financially and technically capable to take over the Company. No challenge from any corner raised before us regarding the technical and economical viability of the resolution applicant in taking over the company by him. This is a unique case in which CIRP could not completed with in 270 days. The exceptional circumstances occasioned beyond the control of the resolution applicant in the case in hand upon the reasons already led in prompt us to exclude the period of litigation and thereby we also found the plan came up for approval with in time. Application disposed off.
|