9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u, Advocate, Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Advocate, Mr. Abhik Chitta Kundu, Advocate. ORDER Per: Rajasekhar V. K., Member (Judicial) 1. IA No.426/KB/2021 is an IA filed by the West Bengal Financial Corporation seeking the following reliefs: (a) Injunction restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect or acting in terms of or in furtherance to the resolution adopted in the meeting of the Committee of Creditors on March 25, 2021, to the extent that time to take a decision in the matter, as specified in the order dated March 16, 2021, regarding the resolution plan of the Respondent No.2, was unilaterally extended; (b) Injunction restraining the respondents from considering and/or deliberating the amended and/or altered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n lapse of the timelines given in the order dated 16.03.2021, the CoC could not have entertained any Resolution Plan by phone. So, other members of the CoC and the RP have acted in violation of the said order. They have also not approached this Adjudicating Authority for extension of the time. This is unprovoked, unsanctioned and unpardonable exercise of power on the part of the CoC. In support of his contention, Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalparaj Dharamshi & another v Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd & another, [Civil Appeal Nos.2943-2944/2020 a/w Civil Appeal Nos.3138-3139/2020, 2949-2950/2020 and 847-848/2021, delivered on 10.03.2021] in which it has been stated that the timelines in Form 'G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was done to maximise the value of assets of the Corporate Debtor and to avoid a decision on liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, notwithstanding insistence of a dissenting Financial Creditor to resolve for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor; 6. Mr. Joy Saha, Ld. Sr. Counsel, appearing for the Resolution Applicant/C.P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. submitted that there was no violation of the order dated 16.03.2021 on the part of the Resolution Applicant. In fact, the order dated 16.03.2021 was passed at the instance of the Resolution Applicant. 7. Mr Joy Saha submits that the principal allegation of the applicant/WBFC is that the RP and the CoC have failed to take a decision in the matter on or before 25.03.2021. Mr. Joy Saha, Ld. Sr. Counsel submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to order liquidation of the corporate debtor. 12. At the outset, we record our disapproval, in the strongest possible terms, the actions of the RP and the majority members of the CoC in not sticking to the timelines specifically given in the order dated 16.03.2021 and unilaterally extending the decision on the resolution plan until 22.04.2021, when the voting on the resolution plan ended. The argument that in view of the extension and exclusion granted by this Adjudicating Authority, there was plenty of time left for concluding the CIRP and therefore, the CoC was justified in taking time in violation of the order dated 16.03.2021, cannot be countenanced at all. 13. While it is true that following the order of exclusion of 52 days vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
