Anju Agarwal Interim Resolution ... vs Committee Of Creditors Of Alpine ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 63 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, on appeal, set aside the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of an application for extension of the CIRP period and extended the CIRP period by 90 days from the date of the order, holding that the Resolution Professional's application for extension, though filed after the CIRP period had expired, could not be rejected where the Committee of Creditors had instructed its filing and five prospective resolution applicants had already submitted Expressions of Interest, and where the delay in deciding the application was itself the reason no further steps could be taken; in these circumstances one further opportunity was given for completion of the insolvency resolution process.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Anju Agarwal Interim Resolution Professional for Alpine Realtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Committee of Creditors of Alpine Realtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Karan Kohli, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Chetna Bisht, Advocate.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
26.04.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
counsel appearing for the Home buyers. This Appeal has been filed against
the order dated 01.12.2021 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has
rejected the application filed by the Resolution Professional for extension of
CIRP period.
2. Shri Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that
the CIRP came to an end on 18.11.2020. He submits that in pursuance to
invitation for Expression of Interest on 23.09.2020, five prospective resolution
applicants had filed Expression of Interest and the Committee of Creditors
instructed the Resolution Professional to file application for extension of
period. I.A. No. 5019/2020 was filed by the Resolution Professional on
11.11.2020, which came to be rejected by the Adjudicating Authority by the
impugned order dated 01.12.2021 i.e. more than one year thereafter.
Cont'd.../ -2-
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Home buyers also submits that
period of CIRP be extended since it is a real estate project and Home buyers
are also interested in resolution.
4. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
5. It is on the record that in pursuance of invitation for Expression of
Interest, five prospective resolution applicants had submitted Expression of
Interest but in view of the fact that period of CIRP came to an end and no
extension was allowed, no further steps could be taken. Application can
receive rejection only after one year i.e. on 01.12.2021.
6. In facts of the case, we are of the view that one more opportunity to be
given for resolution of insolvency. We extend the period of CIRP for a period
of 90 days from today, during which period entire process be completed. The
Appellant may convene meeting of the CoC within a week from today and take
further steps as per the instructions issued by the CoC in this regard. In view
of the foregoing discussion, order dated 01.12.2021 rejecting the application
is set aside and I.A. No. 5019 of 2020 is allowed extending the period of CIRP
for 90 days from today. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) Archana/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 63 of 2022
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free