Dr. C.V. Madhusudhanan, Liquidator Of Summer India Textiles Mills Private Limited

(Hybrid Mode)

Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)

The Appellant has to blame himself, for the circumstances under which he finds himself, when he is presently before us, seeking extension of time for the purposes of completion of the liquidation process, which stood initiated as back as on 08.02.2019.

The precise facts, of the case are that, M/s. Summer India Textiles Mills Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), was admitted to the CIRP process by an order that was passed on 13.06.2017, and consequentially was directed to be placed under liquidation by an order passed on 08.02.2019, resulting into appointment of the Appellant as the liquidator, to carry out the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor. The liquidation process was to be carried out and completed within the time limit of 12 months from the liquidation commencement date. However, for multiple reasons, which have been adduced by the Appellant, the process couldn’t be completed within the said time frame because of which the Appellant had sought for extension of time from time and time and the said requests have been granted by the Adjudicating Authority. The details are given hereunder: -

The learned Tribunal while granting the last extension for the seventh time on the IA(IBC)/739(CHE)/2025, had granted it by way of a condition that, no further extension would be granted for the purposes of completion of the liquidation process, which stood initiated way back in the year 2019.

When further extension was sought by the Appellant by filing IA(IBC)/1737(CHE)/2025, the learned Tribunal by an order of 12.11.2025, declined to extend the time for completion of the liquidation process, stating that it had already made it clear by its order dated 31.10.2025 that no further extension will be given and instead directed the liquidator to file the dissolution application. The said order dated 31.10.2025 is subject matter of challenge in the connected Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 25/2026.

The Appellant states that the case on hand was an extremely difficult one, that the assets of the Corporate Debtor were intertwingled with assets of another Corporate Debtor, which is also under liquidation and the assets of the promotors/guarantors that the said assets can only sold jointly through private sale, that the secured creditors already sold the land of the Corporate Debtor under SARFAESI proceedings and hence he had to convince the buyer of the said land to purchase the buildings standing on the said land and that it required protracted negotiations with the other liquidator, the creditors, auction purchasers and other shareholders. He has further submitted that, finally he has found two buyers and entered into agreement with them, that he has received part of the consideration from the said buyers who have requested for some more time to remit the entire sum, and accordingly he had prayed before the learned NCLT, an extension of time till 30.04.2026, which has been rejected, and that the said order be set aside and he may be given further time to complete the sale process already initiated by him and to complete the liquidation process in all respects.

Looking into the conduct of the liquidator, the manner and diligence with which the liquidation process has been undertaken by the Appellant for more than 6 years, the Appellant doesn’t deserve any further extension of time. However, exclusively in the interest of justice, and particularly in order to enable the process which has already been undertaken by the Appellant to attain its logical end, an extension is given by way of last opportunity for a period of three months from today, with an assurance extended by the learned counsel for the Appellant, on behalf of the Appellant himself that, the process would definitely be completed by 19.05.2026.

The Appellant through his counsel before us undertakes that if the liquidation process, as it stood initiated in the year 2019, is not completed within the extended period, i.e., up to 19.05.2026, the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 which is under challenge in the connected Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 25/2026, containing a direction for filing of an application for dissolution will be revived back and that he will ensure to comply with the same order.

Subject to the above, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 24/2026, would stand ‘allowed’. The impugned order of 12.11.2025, by virtue of which the extension has been declined to be granted owing to the restrictions imposed by earlier extensions granted would stand quashed, with the extension being granted to the Appellant to complete the liquidation process by the next date fixed, i.e., by 19.05.2026.

So far as the order dated 31.10.2025, which is under challenge in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 25/2026, is concerned, it will remain suspended in its operation till the completion of the process in the extended period as granted in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 24/2026. It goes without saying and as admitted too by the Appellant, that the direction given in the impugned order of 31.10.2025 will automatically revive back, if the liquidation process is not completed on or before 19.05.2026.

Owing to the order passed by us, the condonation of 3 days of delay in filing the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 25/2026, which has been sought by the Appellant by filing the application being IA No.277/2026, would stand ‘condoned’ on account of the reasons given in the application. Accordingly, IA No. 277/2026 would stand ‘allowed’.

Subject to the above, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 24/2026, would stand ‘allowed’. The impugned order dated 12.11.2025 would stand modified to that extent.

As far as Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 25/2026 is concerned the same would stand ‘disposed of’ in terms of the above undertaking given by the Appellant.