AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
14.05.2025: These two appeals have been filed by the Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. challenging the order passed by Adjudicating Authority dated 02.05.2025 by which adjudicating authority has allowed the exclusion of 45 days in CIRP and an application filed by the appellant directing for liquidation has been rejected.
The appellant in the CoC has vote share of only 0.17%. Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging both the orders submit that there have already been two exclusions, and one extension and there was no occasion for direct for exclusion of 45 days and adjudicating authority committed an error in allowing the exclusion application.
Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the decision of different applications and the decision by which the CoC has resolved to seek exclusion of 45 days which has been allowed by the impugned order.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the CoC does not give any reason for allowing the exclusion.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The CIRP is run under the decision taken by the CoC and the CoC had taken a decision with requisites majority to seek exclusion of 45 days.
We see no error committed by the adjudicating authority in allowing the application praying for exclusion of 45 days.
Further, application filed by the appellant for directing for liquidation has rightly been rejected since after allowing the application for exclusion the CIRP has to proceed. It is submitted by the appellant himself that Resolution Plans are there for consideration. One plan by the same person has been submitted. In these proceedings we are not required to make any observation with regard to any plan submitted in the CIRP.
We however are of the view that no error can be found in the order of adjudicating authority directing for exclusion of 45 days which decision was taken by the requisites majority of the CoC and the appellant who had 0.17% vote share cannot be allowed to question the said decision.
With these observations, both the appeals are dismissed.