Aaa Insolvency Professionals Llp Rp Of ... vs Respondents

IN THE MATTER OF: AAA Insolvency Professionals LLP ...Appellants Versus ---- ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shalya Aggarwal, Ms. Ritika Gaur and Mr. Sandeep Vij, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for CoC.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.04.2025: Heard Shri Krishnendu Datta, Ld. Senior Counsel

appearing for the Appellant as well as Shri Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel

appearing for the CoC.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.02.2025 by which

order Adjudicating Authority has extended the period of CIRP for 60 days and

made following observations in paragraph-5 & 6 which are as follows:

"5. In light of the foregoing discussion and judgment, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period of the Corporate Debtor is hereby extended for 60 days from the date of passing of this order. Further, we direct that no further extension shall be granted in this matter. The Resolution Professional (RP) is directed to ensure the completion of the CIRP within the extended period in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and applicable regulations.

6. The Resolution Professional (RP) is directed to take necessary steps in accordance with the law. If no viable resolution plan is submitted with the consent of the CoC, the RP shall file an appropriate application for liquidation before this Adjudicating Authority (AA) without any further delay."

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the present is a case where

corporate debtor has only one asset and that is registered trade mark and

various steps were taken by the Resolution Professional but there was no co-

operation from the Suspended Directors. Adjudicating Authority in the

impugned order has already noted that extension beyond 449 days was

prayed for by the resolution of the CoC held on 16.01.2025 extension has also

been granted for 60 days thus, 60 days beyond 449 days are available the

CIRP i.e. 60 days from 21.02.2025. We are of the view that Adjudicating

Authority has not committed any error in granting extension of only 60 days.

Counsel for the Appellant submits that in event the appellant is able to bring

on record before the Adjudicating Authority efforts made during these 60 days

period and if there are relevant facts and circumstances praying extension the

order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 21.02.2025 may not come in the

way of the court in considering any such request. Ld. Counsel for the CoC is

also has supported the submission of the appellant.

4. We are of the view that timelines provided in the CIRP have their own

salutary effects, sufficient time has already elapsed and there has to a very

strong reason for granting any further extension. We thus are of the view that

there is no good ground to interfere in the impugned order except with the

liberty to the appellant to make an application if any such circumstances

arises and the impugned order shall not preclude the Adjudicating Authority 2 of 3 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 590 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2273 of 2025 to consider prayer especially with regard to steps taken in these 60 days

period which has been extended by the Adjudicating Authority. Subject to

above, we dismiss the appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

3 of 3 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 590 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2273 of 2025