9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16, (for short `The Code') against Indu Projects Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) before the NCLT Hyderabad to which C.P. (IB) No.372/HDB/2018 was assigned. The said Application was admitted on 25.02.2019, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (`CIRP') was initiated and Moratorium under Section 14 of the Code was also imposed. 2. The Appellant (`M/s. Earthin Projects Ltd.') submitted the Resolution Plan which was approved by the Committee of Creditors (`CoC') and the Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 01.10.2021. At that time, the Moratorium which was imposed with the initiation of the CIRP dated 25.02.2019 was categorically ordered to have been ceased to have effect. The Appellant failed to fulfil the necessary conditions of the Resolut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 25.11.2022 is under challenge by way of an Appeal by the Appellant bearing Civil Appeal No.1133/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is stated to be pending. 7. The RP then filed IA No.305/2023 seeking approval of the second Plan submitted by a consortium of Mr. B. Subba Reddy and Mr. C. Venkateswara Reddy which has been allowed by the Impugned Order dated 05.07.2023. It is also pertinent to mention that the Appellant filed IA No.103/2023 for recalling of the Order dated 19.06.2023, by which they had sought intervention in IA No.283/2022. However, the said Application was also dismissed by the Order of the same date i.e., 05.07.2023. 8. The Appellant has thus challenged both the Orders of 05.07.2023 by the present Appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered to be initiated afresh, it was incumbent upon the Adjudicating Authority to have imposed the Moratorium as well otherwise there would be no importance of the Moratorium. 11. He has further argued that with the passing of the Order dated 01.10.2021 in their favour, a legitimate expectation vested with the Appellant for the purpose of getting the Plan as they had undertaken to make the delayed payment with 8% interest but because of the Order passed in I.A. No.283/2022 behind their back and even dismissing their Application for impleadment, the Appellant could not bring all this facts to the Notice of the Court. 12. Counsel for the RP has denied all these allegations but keeping in view the fact that some arguable points arise in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
