9859501d0775b877a49f8c285638b296

a. CIRP started against corporate debtor on 03.01.2019 and appointed Mr.Manivannan as IRP and continued him as Resolution Professional after due approval of COC at its first meeting held on 08.02.2019.

b. It is averred that RP sought the extension of initial CIRP period of 180 days by another 90 days, and the same was considered by the Tribunal by its order dated 19.07.2019 by extending the CIRP period by another 90 days from 03.07.2019. In terms of the said order the CIRP should have been completed within 270 days i.e on or before 01.10.2019.

c. It is averred that only one Expression of Interest was received from existing promoter of the Company and the same has been rejected by the Resolution professional. Aggrieved by the decision of the RP, the promoters filed an Application i.e IA No.833/2019. Considering the IA No.833/2019, the Tribunal vide order dated 06.01.2020 directed the RP to consider the resolution plan submitted by the promoter in accordance with the provisions of IBC, 2016 and in view of the amended provisions of Section 12 of the Code.

d. It is averred that in compliance with the order dated 06.01.2020, the promoters have submitted their binding resolution plan on 18.01.2020 and the same has been placed before the COC in the meeting held on 23.01.2020 for its consideration. The COC thus requested Resolution Applicant to enhance the Resolution Plan value, so that they can consider the plan. However, one of the COC member namely Indian Overseas Bank expressed that they are not in position to consider the plan unless and until the IA NO.832/2019 is disposed of by the Tribunal wherein the promoters challenged the realization of mortgaged property by IOB during the moratorium. After due discussion, the Resolution Applicant agreed to submit the revised Resolution Plan. Subsequently the revised resolution plan was submitted on 06.02.2020 i.e the last date of extended period.

e. It is averred that the revised resolution plan was submitted at the fag end so the RP and COC were unable to complete the process within the extended period. Thus the Applicant filed IA No.157/2020 seeking extension of CIRP period by another 15 days. When the said application is pending, lockdown started due to COVID-19 pandemic.

f. It is averred that the Tribunal vide order dated 04.08.2020 extended the CIRP period initially from 07.02.2020 to 24.03.2020 and after excluding Covid-19 lockdown from 25.03.2020 to 31.07.2020 and thereafter extended the CIRP from 01.08.2020 to 25.08.2020 and directed the RP to complete the CIRP by 25.08.2020.

g. Pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2020, RP requested the MSME promoters to submit the revised Resolution Plan at the earliest for consideration. The promoter has submitted the plan on 10.08.2020 and the same was placed before COC for consideration in its meeting held on 17.08.2020.

h. It is averred that the plan submitted by the promoters provides that the amount realized by way of sale of assets of the personal/corporate guarantors to the corporate debtor by the COC members i.e Andhra Bank and IOB during the CIRP period as part of resolution plan. However, both the COC members have not agreed to the said proposal and requested the Promoters to remove the said clauses from the Resolution plan and requested the promoters to revise the plan for consideration.

Admittedly, both the COC members have realized the substantial amounts by way of sale of assets of the guarantors to the corporate debtor during the CIRP period and the same has been appropriated by them against the admitted claims. However, the said COC member have not submitted their revised claims after adjusting the appropriate amount with RP as on the date of last COC meeting.

j. In view of the facts, CIRP could not be completed within the extended period i.e by 25.08.2020 and thereby the RP requested the COC members to recommend for extension of CIRP period by another 30 days. In this regard, resolution was passed unanimously by the COC members through e-voting conducted on 24.08.2020.

k. It is further submitted that in the matter of Essar Steel India Vs Satish Kumar Gupta & ors., with regard to Section 12 of the Code wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court Struck off the "mandatorily" word and held that while leaving the provision otherwise intact, the term "mandatorily" is struck down as being manifestly arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as being unreasonable restriction on the litigant's right to carry on the business under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. If the delay or a large part thereof is attributable to the tardy process of the AA and/or the NCALT itself, it may be open in such cases for the AA and/or NCLAT to extend time beyond 330 days. It is only in exceptional cases that time can be extended, the general rule being that 330 days is the outer limit within which resolution of the stressed assets of the corporate debtor must take place beyond which it is to be driven into liquidation.

It is averred that IA No.832/2019, was pending disposal during the period from 26.09.2019 to 15.07.2020 as stated supra i.e in Point no.5 and because of which the COC was not able to consider the resolution plan submitted by the promoters resolution applicant within the extended period.

m. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the powers conferred under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 the Hon'ble NCLT as well Hon'ble NCLAT can extend time limit under Section 12 of the code beyond 330 days. In view of the facts the applicant is praying the Tribunal to extend the CIRP period by 30 days in order to complete the CIRP process.