Bank Of Maharashtra vs Videocon Industries Limited & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 503 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may, in the exercise of its power to grant relief ancillary to a judgment it has delivered, extend time for completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process where its earlier order remitted the matter to the Committee of Creditors for completion of the process without fixing any time for that purpose, and the absence of a time limit leaves uncertainty as to further proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Bank of Maharashtra ....Appellant Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents For Appellant: Mr. Chaitanya B. Nikte, Mr. Abhinav Agrarwal, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anoop Rawat, Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Ms. Ameya Gokhale, Ms. Megna Rajadhyaksha, Mr. Vaijayant Paliiwal, Ms. Radhika Indapurkar, Ms. Mohana Nijhawan, Mr. Bryan Pillai, Ms. Ishani Mukherjee, Ms. Priya Singh, Ms. Moulshree Shukla, Advocates for RP Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, Mr. Madhav Kanoria, Mr. Prafful Goyal, Advocates for COC Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Mr. Shreyas Edupuganti, Advocate for R15
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
08.02.2022: The Application I.A No. 350 of 2020 has been filed by the
Resolution Professional praying for following prayers:-
"a. To pass an order allowing the present Application;
b. To pass an order granting additional period of 90 days with effect from 18 January 2022 for completion of CIRP of the Consolidated Corporate Debtors;
2 c. Pass such other/ further orders as made be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Appellate Authority.'
2. The Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 503 of 2021 was decided by
judgment of this Tribunal dated 05.02.2022, operating portion of the
judgment is in para 50 which is to the following effect:-
"50. In view of the above stated analysis of facts and law, we have come to the conclusion that Section 30(2)(b) of the Code has not been complied with an hence, the approval of the Resolution Plan is not in accordance with Section 31 of the Code. Accordingly, the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC as well as Adjudicating Authority is set aside and the matter is remitted back to CoC for completion of the process relating to CIRP in accordance with the provisions of the Code. All IAs stands disposed of.
Appeal CA(AT) (Ins) No. 650 of 2021 dismissed whereas Appeal CA (AT) (Ins) No. 503, 505, 529 & 545 of 2021 allowed as indicated above.
No order as to costs."
3. The Resolution Professional submits that although the matter is
remitted to the Committee of Creditors for completion of the Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) but since no time has been given there
is uncertainty regarding further proceeding. In the Application, it has been I.A. No. 350 of 2022 IN Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 503 of 2021 3
prayed that 90 days being granted w.e.f. 18.01.2022 for completion of the
CIRP of the consolidated Corporate Debtors.
4. We find that the prayers made in the Application are to be allowed. The
Application I.A 350 of 2022 is allowed in terms of the prayer as made in
prayer (b) quoted above. Application is disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Anjali/n
I.A. No. 350 of 2022 IN Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 503 of 2021
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