9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER ( HYBRID MODE ) I.A. No. 5688 of 2023 This application is filed for seeking exemption from filing dim/illegible typed copy in the instant appeal. This application is allowed subject to all just exceptions Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1578 of 2023 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court -IV (in short 'Adjudicating Authority') in I.A. (IBC)/ 286/ 2023 IN C.P. (IB) No. 901/ ND/ 2020 by which the application filed by the Appellant under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') r/w Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (in short 'NCLT Rules') praying for a direction to condone the delay of 544 day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Anugraham Builders which was approved by the CoC on 24.12.2022. 7. The Appellant filed an I.A. (IBC)/286/2023 in which the aforesaid prayers were made. While the said application was pending, I.A. No. 387 of 2023 was filed on 11.01.2023 by the Resolution Professional for approval of the Resolution Plan. It is submitted that arguments in the said application were heard and order was reserved on 14.02.2024 but before that date the application filed by the Appellant was dismissed on 18.10.2023. 8. The Tribunal relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021 - M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited Vs. Mukul Kumar decided on 11.09.2023 in which it was held that :- "The mere fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .08.2020 after the approval of the plan by the CoC, therefore, it is submitted that in that background the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para 21 of the judgment that "The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth". 12. It is further submitted that this is not the position in the present case rather in the case of Puneet Kaur (Supra) the facts were that the Plan was put up for voting in the CoC between 13.06.2021 to 19.06.2021, whereas the claim was filed on 14.06.2021 when the voting was still going on and ultimately the Plan was approved on 20.07.2021. 13. It is thus submitted that in the case of Puneet Kaur (Supra) the question was framed as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
