TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief as the court considers appropriate. 2. The facts of the case are stated herein: 2.1 CP (IB) 98 of 2020 was admitted on 12.03.2020 by this Adjudicating Authority under Section 9 of the IB Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor, viz., M/s. Vicor Stainless Private Limited and Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred as IRP ) was appointed. 2.2 In pursuance of the said admission order, IRP issued a public announcement for inviting the claims from the stakeholders and the last date for submission of claims was fixed as 31.03.2020. 2.3 The Applicant submitted that the Applicant came to know about the CIRP against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of record that the Applicant has submitted its claim in Form-B on 04.09.2020 and the same was rejected by the RP on the ground of delay in filing his claim. Such action of the RP was taken in due compliance of the provisions of Clause (c) of the Sub-section (2) of the Section 15 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Clause (c) of the Sub Regulation (2) of the Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 read with Sub Regulation (2) of the Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and also after taking into account the provisions of Regulati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as the RP, also seen the record. It is a matter of record that the main petition, i.e. CP (IB) 98 of 2020, was admitted on 12.03.2020 and IRP was appointed, who invited claim(s) by making public announcement in Form-A and the last date for submission of claims were mentioned as 31.03.2020. However, considering the spread of Covid-19 and situation of national lockdown, the claims of the creditors were being accepted up to 12.06.2020. Even if the lockdown period as well as 90 days is excluded, it will come to 16.08.2020. However, the Applicant has submitted its claim on 04.09.2020, much beyond the stipulated time as well as extended period of 90 days and 68 days of lockdown period. 8. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Resolutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P will be over. 9. It is also pertinent to mention herein that this is not an isolated claim, there were as many as 7-8 applications wherein the order is pronounced regarding the claims being filed before the RP in much belated stage and they have approached this Adjudicating Authority for condonation of delay, when the Resolution Plan is at the verge of approval. Those applications are IA 840 of 2020, IA 841 of 2020, IA 842 of 2020, IA 843 of 2020, IA 844 of 2020, IA 904 of 2020 and IA 905 of 2020 all these IAs are filed at belated stage in CP (IB) 98 of 2020, having same issues. If such applications are allowed, then, there is every likelihood that the Resolution Applicants may withdraw their plans, as it will be a burden with other hu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitive industry of IUs who would hold an array of information about all firms. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta Ors, 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
