AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CA-888/2019
Ld. Counsel for the IRP appeared and submitted that she has already filed the rejoinder. However, the same is not on record. Ld. Counsel for the IRP is directed to verify from the office whether there is any defect pointed out by the office or not and if any defect is pointed out by the office the Ld. Counsel for the IRP is directed to remove the same. She is also directed to serve a hard copy of the same to Ld. Opposite counsels. List the case for 16.03.2020.
CA-1224/2020
Ld. RP has filed the present application praying therein to allow one week's more the time to file complete application under Section 30(6) and 31 of the IBC and this application is registered as CA-1224/2020. He further submitted that on 25.02.2020, he filed the resolution plan which is registered as CA/ 1519/2020.
Both the CAs have been filed by the Ld. RP. He submitted that since the voting was completed on 05.02.2020, therefore, in order to file the application for complete resolution plan, he sought extension of one week and in the meantime, he also filed the complete resolution plan. He further submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT, the resolution plan is filed on 25.02.2020, He further submitted that this Adjudicating Authority is competent to extend the time by exercising its powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules.
In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the Ld. RP, we have gone through the order dated 27.11.2019 by which after considering the submissions of Ld. RP, this Adjudicating Authority refused to extend the period of CIRP by 45 days beyond the period of 30 days. We further find that against this order, Ld. RP filed an appeal before the Hon'ble NCLAT bearing no. Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1425/2019 and the Hon'ble NCLAT allowed the appeal and passed the following order:
"The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back. The Appellant-Resolution Professional will ensure that the Resolution Plan as already filed and placed before CoC is urgently looked into and request the CoC to urgently take decision one way or the other. For this purpose, time is given till 6th February, 2020. If the resolution plan gets approved, the same be urgently placed before the Adjudicating Authority on or before 6th February, 2020. If this effort fails, the Adjudicating Authority would be at liberty to pass suitable further orders after 6th February, 2020 as per the provisions of IBC. The Resolution Professional and CoC must complete the necessary steps to ensure that the application gets filed before the Adjudicating Authority on or before 6th February, 2020, showing whether or not the Resolution Plan has been approved".
When we have gone through the order passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT then we find that that Hon'ble NCLAT while considering the prayer of the appellant passed the above order and thereafter allowed the appeal and fixed a date to submit the resolution plan on or before 06.02.2020.
On the basis of the aforesaid order, we find that after considering the submissions made on behalf of the Resolution Professional, the Hon'ble NCLAT in the interest of justice gave one last opportunity to the Ld. RP to get the resolution plan approved and file it on or before 06.02.2020 before the Adjudicating Authority but the same has not been complied by the Resolution Professional rather, instead of filing the resolution plan by CA No. 1224/2020, Resolution Professional informed that the voting was done and prayed for extension of time to file resolution plan, which in our opinion is not in pursuant to the order/direction given by the Hon'ble NCLAT in para 10 of the order, rather, on the basis of aforesaid order, we are of the considered view that the Resolution Professional was required to file the resolution plan on or before 06.02.2020. We further find that the Hon'ble NCLAT mentioned in the operative portion of the order that if Ld. RP fails to file resolution plan then this Adjudicating Authority would be at liberty to pass any suitable orders as per the provisions of IBC.
As we have already dealt with the provisions of IBC, while considering the prayer for extension of 45 days and same was referred in the order dated 27.11.2019, we are of the considered view that since the period of more than 330 days have already been expired and the Resolution Professional has failed to file the resolution plan within the time given by the Hon'ble NCLAT, therefore, under such circumstances, we are not inclined to extend the period. Hence, the prayer of Resolution Professional to extend the period is hereby rejected. With this order CA-1224/2020 stands disposed of.
So far CA-1519/2020 is concerned, list the same for on 16.03.2020.