AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1906/2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the Resolution Professional (RP).
This appeal has been filed against an order dated 08.09.2025, by which order, adjudicating authority rejected I.A. No.1437/ND/2025, by which I.A., the appellant has prayed for following reliefs:
“a)Allow the present application and direct the Mr. Arvind Mittal, Resolution Professional of APS Infra Engineering Private Limited, to place the Resolution Plan submitted by the Applicant before the Committee of Creditors for consideration;
b)Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass in the present case.”
The adjudicating authority has taken note of the fact that on the request, extension was granted to file resolution plan of 10 days and the Minutes of the 6th Committee of Creditors (CoC) Meeting dated 17.02.2025 has been noted in the order. Subsequently, on the second occasion, appellant again requested for extension of time which was again considered and the CoC decided not to accept the prayer for the three reasons as noted by the CoC in its Minutes which are as follows:
“a. Resolution Plan submitted by Shiva was after the timeline specified for submission of Resolution Plan;
b. Shiva had also failed to submit the EMD required alongwith the Resolution Plan;
c. Shiva had already, on previous occasion requested for ex-tension in timeline for submission of Resolution Plan and on the.ir request CoC had extended the timelines for submission of Resolution Plan.”
Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that due to technical glitch, he could not submit the plan and there was delay of only 1 day. He further submitted that Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) although was not submitted along with the plan but EMD was sent by email on next day.
Learned counsel for the RP submits that resolution plan has already been approved by the CoC with 100% voting share and application is pending for approval of the plan. The appellant was only a Resolution Applicant (RA) and his only right was to consider his plan, in spite of extension granted for 10 days when plan was not submitted, appellant cannot as a matter of right claim extension of further time and further the reasons have been given by the CoC for not accepting the request for extension of time, which we are of the view was on valid reasons. The CoC decided to proceed with plan of 4 Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) who had submitted within timelines and has proceeded and approved the plan as now submitted by RP.
We thus are of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere with the order impugned.
The appeal is dismissed.