Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2021) 07 NCLT CK 0031

Axis Bank Ltd vs Lanco Mandakini Hydro

National Company Law Tribunal · Decided on 12 July 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Dayal Khare, Member (J)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
IA NO.197/2021 IN CP NO.(IB) 85/ALD/2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 371 words
1.

IA NO.197/2021 IN CP NO.(IB)85/ALD/2020 The matter was taken up today through Video Conferencing.

2.

Heard Sh. Arun Saxena, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sh. Yash Tandon, Advocate for the Applicant/ RP through video conferencing, who has filed the

present IA NO.197/2021 in CP NO.(IB)85/ALD/2020 with a prayer to exclude the period of lockdown in the States of Uttarakhand and Haryana, or

a period of 45 days, whichever is lesser for the purpose of calculating the total CIRP period, and further to exclude the period from filing of this

application till the receipt of the order passed by this Tribunal.

3.

It is contended that vide notifications dated 25.04.2021, 06.06.2021 and 14.06.2021 respectively, the Government of Uttarakhand and Government

of Haryana had notified lockdown in the State, according to which extreme difficulties were faced by the applicant and the Corporate Debtor.

4.

It is further contended that the said notifications were updated from time to time and continue to remain in force till date. It is contended that the

Corporate Debtor have its corporate office in Gurugram, Haryana and the project site of the Corporate Debtor is at Uttarakhand, and the prospective

resolution applicant's office is situated at Delhi. It is contended that on account of lockdown, the critical maintenance activities at the project sites in

Uttarakhand was slowed down consistently, and the difficulty in communication was also there between the corporate office and the registered

office.

5.

It is further contended that on account of lockdown, the applicant and the Corporate Debtor were not operating in full strength. It is thus prayed that

the period of lockdown, or 45 days, whichever is lesser, may be excluded for the purpose of computing the total CIRP period of the Corporate

Debtor.

6.

It is also contended that the similar orders were passed by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2020 and 11.06.2021, copies of which has been

appended as Annexure D and Annexure E with this application.

7.

In view of the submission made, this Court is of the opinion that the exclusion of 45 days, as prayed for, is granted. The present application is

hereby allowed to that extent.

8.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed off. No order as to cost.