Crpl Infra Private Limited vs Anil Agarwal Resolution Professional

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) No. 259 of 2021 (Arising out of Order dated 02nd February, 2021 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in I.A. No. 1010/KB/2020 in C.P. (IB) No.- 1444/KB/2018).

IN THE MATTER OF:

CRPL Infra Private Limited 121, Chitranjan Avenue, Opp. Mohammed Ali Park, Kolkata-700073 (W.B.) ...Appellant Though its Director, Mr.. Rajesh Agarwal. Email: crystalcal@rediff.com

Versus

1. Shri Anil Agarwal, Resolution Professional, Transafe Services Limited, Balmer Lawrie House (Rear Building), 6th Floor, 21, N.S. Road, Kolkata - 700001 Email: transafe@aaainsolvency.com anilagarwal@aaainsolvency.com ...Respondent No. 1

2. Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) Kaveri House, 132/1, M.G. Road, Barabazar, Kolkata-700007 Though its Branch Manager. Email: samb.kolkata@syndicatebank.co.in samvkolkata9797@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 2

3. Axis Bank Limited, Structured Assets Group-East, 1 Shakespeare Sarani, 4th Floor, A.C. Market Building, Kolkata-700071 Through its Branch Manager. Email: Renosh.iacob@axisbank.com Prasun.Bhattacharya@axisbank.com ...Respondent No. 3

4. HDFC Bank Ltd., Tower B, 4th Floor, Peninsulla Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, -2-

Dwan Mills Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai - 400013 Through its Branch Manager. Email: Manish.Nyati@hdfcbank.com ...Respondent No. 4

5. The Karur Vyasya Bank Ltd. Kolkata, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Ground Floor, S.B. Towers, 37, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700017 Through its Branch Manager. Email: shakespeare@kvbmail.com srinivas@kvbmail.com ...Respondent No. 5

6. Bank of India, Kolkata Large, Corporate Branch, 5 B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata - 700001 Through its Branch Manager. Email: LCB.kolkata@bankofindia.co.in ...Respondent No. 6

7. Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited, 3rd Floor, 21, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700001 Through its Company Secretary. Email: choudhary.dinesh@balmerlawrie.com ...Respondent No. 7

8. Om Logistics Ltd., 130 Transport Centre, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi - 110035 Through its Company Secretary. Email: ashishmathur@omlogistics.co.in omgroup@omlogistics.co.in ...Respondent No. 8

Appellant: Mr. Rajender Singhvi, Advocates. Respondents: Mr. Anil Agarwal, RP in person. Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta (PCA), Mr.. Nipun Gautam (RP), Advocates for R-1. Mr. R K Sanghi, Sr. Advocate for R-1 & R-8. Mr. Shivang Rawat, Advocate for R-2 to R-6. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava & Mr. Nirmal Prasad, Advocates for (CoC) R-2 to R-6.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -3-

JUDGEMENT

[Per; Shreesha Merla, Member (T)]

1. Challenge in this Appeal namely Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.

259 of 2021, is to the Impugned Order dated 02.02.2021, passed by the

Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata

Bench) in I.A. No. 1010/KB/2020 in C.P. (IB) No.- 1444/KB/2018 under

Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Code'). By the Impugned Order, the Learned Adjudicating

Authority has dismissed the I.A. No. 1010/KB/2020 preferred by M/s. CRPL

Infra Private Limited, the Applicant/Appellant herein against the Resolution

Professional/(RP) and the Members of Committee of Creditors (CoC) praying

to set aside the resolution passed at the 12th COC Meeting held on

10.09.2020, on the ground that the CoC had rejected the Applicant's request

for extension of time to submit the Resolution Plan and to consider the

Resolution Plan proposed to be submitted by the Applicant/Appellant

herein.

2. While dismissing the I.A., the Adjudicating Authority has observed as

follows:

―18. This is a case where the CIRP had commenced on 21.11.2019, the first invitation to EoI was published on 18.01.2020. The last date of submission of resolution plan had been extended four times at the instance of prospective resolution applicants including the Applicant herein. Upon receiving an email from the RP, the resolution applicants, including the Applicant herein, had submitted their revised resolution plans before the eleventh CoC meeting was held on

03.09.2020.

19. In the said meeting, upon request from the Applicant herein, an opportunity to make revised bids

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -4-

during the twelfth CoC meeting to be held on 10.09.2020 was granted. However, the Applicant herein, wide email dated 08.09.2020 sought further extension of time for submission of revised resolution plan. This request for further, extension was not entertained by the CoC in its twelfth meeting, however, the CoC has offered the Applicant to continue to be a part of the ongoing process so that it may have an opportunity at a later stage. The Applicant sought 15 minutes time for discussion and upon discussion, the Applicant decided not to participate in the open bidding process and exited the meeting. Therefore, the CoC went on to approve the resolution plan submitted by Om Logistics Ltd., i.e. Respondent No. 8 herein, in its fourteenth CoC meeting held on 17.10.2020.

20. From the submissions made on behalf of all the parties and the documents available on record, it is seen that four opportunities were granted for submission of resolution plan vide dates 16.04.2020, 30.05.2020, 29.06.2020, 31.07.2020, and two opportunities were granted to submit revised resolution plan vide 19.08.2020 and 03.09.2020 to the Applicant herein. Despite several opportunities being granted, the Applicant herein has failed to submit its revised resolution plan.

21. The Applicant's submission that the resolution plan could not be finalised due to lockdown and due to its directors, other than the authorised representative, being either infected or exposed to Covid-19 on various dates is also not very tenable since by the September 2020, remote working technologies were abundantly available, most of the proceedings had moved online, and the board meetings could also have been held online during the extended time already granted by the CoC.

22. All the resolution applicants, including the Applicant herein, were given equal opportunity to submit their resolution plans and revised resolution plans, in fact, the time was even extended upon the Applicant's request. The Applicant herein was treated at par with others and opportunity to participate in the meetings was given to them. In our considered opinion, neither the decision of the CoC nor of the RP was unreasonable or arbitrary. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority is neither inclined towards

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -5-

quashing and setting aside the resolution passed at the twelfth CoC meeting of the Corporate Debtor held on 10.09.2020 to the extent that it rejects the Applicant's request for extension of time to submit its resolution plan nor inclined towards directing the RP and the CoC to consider the resolution plan proposed to be submitted by the Applicant.‖

3. Submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

Appellant:

 Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that during

the CoC Meeting on 03.09.2020, all the Resolution Applicants agreed

for adjournment to file the revised Resolution Plan. On 08.09.2020,

the RP sent an email conveying that the 10th COC Meeting would take

place on 10.09.2020, without stating the agenda and giving only two

days time which is not in conformity with Section 19 of the Code.

 On 08.09.2020 itself the Appellant addressed an email to the RP

seeking 10-15 days extra time to submit the revised Resolution Plan,

but the RP on 10.09.2020 had conveyed to the Appellant that the COC

has refused to extend the time. Even the Minutes of the Meeting were

not supplied on the ground that it is a confidential document.

 The RP was aware that the Appellant was going to revise their offer to

around Rs.55 Crs. and would become the highest bidder.

 On 10.09.2020, H8 was declared as H1 and the CoC passed the

resolution on 04.11.2020 taking 53 days to approve the Plan. But the

Appellant was not given any opportunity though no harm would have

been caused had 10 to 15 days time been given to the Appellant.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -6-

 The I.A. preferred by the Appellant herein was heard by the

Adjudicating Authority on 02.10.2020 but the Judgement was

pronounced only 60 days later, whereby valuable time was lost.

 The Learned Counsel drew our attention to Annexure 11 which is an

email dated 08.09.2020 sent by the Appellant seeking time for the

following reasons:

o Despite talking all steps as may be necessary in order to comply with the timeline of 10th September, 2020, we have been unable to finalize and formalize our Resolution Plan in view of the lockdown that was imposed across the Country due to COVID-19. As a result of the Pandemic, we had very limited access to our office and all the documents necessary to prepare our Resolution Plan. As a result of this delay, we have lost a considerable amount of time;

o Our Director Mr. Naresh Agarwal has been unwell and has in fact been diagnosed with COVID-19. A copy of the medical reports in this respect are enclosed. As a result, he was unable to assist in preparation of the Resolution Plan. Mr. Agarwal was a critical member of our team and was in fact spearheading this assignment. In his absence and without his leadership, our team has been struggling to formalize and finalize the Resolution Plan. Further Mr. Rajesh Agarwal, one of the key promoters of the Resolution Applicant is under home quarantine due to his recent exposure to a covid-19 positive patient. Our General Manager - Accounts Mr. Ved Byas, another key member of the whole transaction is also found to be Covid-19 positive and is under home isolation. We are confident that all these key members will be in a condition to resume office within a period of 14 days from the date of this letter, post which, our team will endeavor to expeditiously formalize and finalize the Resolution Plan; o ......

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -7-

o Our Government, various legislations and Courts across the Country have adopted a sympathetic approach and have duly extend timelines which were unable to be met as a result of the Pandemic Covid-19. In fact, as you are aware, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India vide notification dated 29th March 2020 inserted Regulation 40C which states as below:-

―40C. Special provision relating to time-line. Notwithstanding the timelines contained in these regulations, but subject to the provisions in the Code, the period of lockdown imposed by the Central Government in the wake of COVID19 outbreak shall not be counted for the purposes of the time-line for any activity that could not be completed due to such lockdown, in relation to a corporate insolvency resolution process.‖

4. Submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent No. 1/Resolution Professional (RP):

 The RP in consonance with the CoC Members extended the time for

submission of the Resolution Plan four times i.e., 01.04.2020 till

31.07.2020 (120 days). The RP in the 8th CoC Meeting held on

31.07.2020 appraised the Members of the COC that two Resolution

Applicants had sent their email seeking extension of the last date of

submission of the Resolution Plan. The Members of the COC were not

in favour of extending the time. In the 9th COC Meeting held on

12.08.2020 three Resolution Applicant submitted their Plans:

Sl. Particulars Location Resolution No. of PRA Plan Received

1. Om Logistics Ltd. (Respondent No. 8). Delhi Yes

2. Western Carriers (India) Limited. Kolkata Yes

3. CRPL Infra Private Limited (Appellant) Kolkata Yes

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -8-

 R8 proposed a higher bid amount and was declared as H1 Bidder with

a revised bid for Rs.43 Crs.

 The 12th CoC Meeting was held on 10.09.2020, wherein the RP

brought to the notice of the CoC that an email was received from the

Appellant seeking extension of time, but the same was refused.

 The H1 Bidder had written to the RP on 30.07.2020 and on

28.08.2020 that the extension in timeline might lead to their

withdrawal from the Resolution Process of the 'Corporate Debtor' and

that the funds earmarked for taking over the 'Corporate Debtor' may

be deployed in some other Project.

 The timelines were published on 18.02.2020 through Form-G and the

Appellant had given declaration that they will abide by the timelines

and the provisions of RFRT.

 After the Members of the COC conveyed to the Appellant that

extension could not be granted, the Appellant decided to exit the

Meeting and their open bidding process was conducted wherein H1

Company was declared the Bidder with Rs.49 Crs.

 The EMD amount was returned to the Appellant. An application was

preferred by the Appellant in September 2020, but the same was not

pursued by them before the Adjudicating Authority, though it was

sitting regularly.

 After the approval of the Resolution Plan, the RP conveyed the first

Meeting of the Monitoring Committee and three new Board of

Directors were appointed. Further, as per the terms of the Resolution

Plan on 16.04.2021, Rs.49 Crs. were received from H1 out of which

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -9-

Rs.47.17 Crs. payment was made to all the 'Secured Financial

Creditors'. The Government and statutory dues were also paid.

 The 'Financial Creditors' namely Axis Bank, Canara Bank, HDFC

Bank and Bank of India issued NOC and release their security

interest.

 R-8 has taken control over the ownership and management of the

'Corporate Debtor Company'. The Plan has been implemented. The RP

in support of their case relied on the following Judgements:

o ‗Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited' Vs. ‗Satish Kumar Gupta',

(2019) 2 SCC 1.

o ‗Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited' Vs. ‗Satish

Kumar Gupta', 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1478, Para 54.

o ‗K Sashidhar' Vs. ‗Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.', 2019 SCC

OnLine SC 257, Para 52, 55, 57, 58 & 64.

o ‗Maharashtra Seamless Limited' Vs. ‗Padmanabhan', Civil Appeal

No. 4242 of 2018, Para 28.

o ‗Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.' Vs. ‗Union of India', 2019 SCC

OnLine SC 73, Para 82-84.

5. Submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent No. 8/Successful Resolution Applicant:

 The Resolution Plan has already been implemented and all the old

Directors of the Company have resigned and the new Directors were

appointed. Bankers have released their charges on the assets of their

Company.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -10-

 The Successful Resolution Applicant has invested huge amounts on

Purchase of Equipment, Repair of Machinery, Revival of Plant at

Dheruheda.

 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that commercial

wisdom of the CoC cannot be overturned.

 Though the Appellant referred to the email dated 08.09.2020 stating

that one Mr. Naresh Agarwal, one of the directors of the Appellant was

tested Covid positive. The other authorised person Mr. Murali Lal

Agarwal (the other director of the Appellant Company) or Mr. Rajesh

Agarwal who has filed this Appeal could have acted on behalf of the

Appellant Company.

 Regulation 40-C is applicable only till the end of the period of

lockdown. As per the provisions of the Regulations for Resolution Plan

(RFRP) all prospective Resolution Applicants have agreed to abide by

the decision of the CoC under clause 1.14.7 of the RFRP, as it has

been stated that no extension of time shall be given to the Resolution

Applicant for submission of Resolution Plan.

Assessment:

6. I.A. 599 of 2021 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal is

condoned vide Order dated 09.08.2021.

7. The material on record shows that the last date for submission of the

Resolution Plan was extended five times:

 On 01.04.2020

 16.04.2020

 30.05.2020

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -11-

 29.06.2020

 and finally till 30.07.2020

8. It is the case of the Appellant that RP had given only two days time

i.e., the email was addressed to them on 08.09.2020 and the 10th CoC

Meeting was convened on 10.09.2020 and that the fixing of the date within

two days is not in conformity with Section 19 of the Code and there are no

reasons for the urgency stated in the email. The documentary evidence on

record shows that the 12th COC Meeting was held on 10.09.2020, whereby

the RP brought to the notice of the COC Members regarding the request of

the Appellant in the email dated 08.09.2020 seeking extension till

25.09.2020 for submission of the revised Resolution Plan. Further extension

of date was declined by the Members of the COC. As regarding the urgency

which is submitted by the Appellant, it is a well settled proposition that IBC

is a time bound process and any extension of time has to be done strictly

under the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Code which reads as follows:

12. Time-limit for completion of insolvency resolution process.-

...........(2) The resolution professional shall file an application to the Adjudicating Authority to extend the period of the corporate insolvency resolution process beyond one hundred and eighty days, if instructed to do so by a resolution passed at a meeting of the committee of creditors by a vote of [sixty-six] per cent. of the voting shares.

9. Sub-Section (3) of Section 30 of the Code provides that the RP shall

present the Resolution Plans, which conform to the requirement of Section

30, before the CoC for approval. After considering the feasibility and

viability, as stipulated under sub-Section (4) of Section 30, the CoC may

approve the Resolution Plan by a vote not less than 66%. The Hon'ble

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -12-

Supreme Court in 'Ebix Singapore Private Limited' Vs. 'Committee of

Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited & Anr.' 2021 SCC OnLine SC

707, in para 142 discussed the importance of adherence to timelines and it

is relevant to reproduce the observations:

142 As noted above, Section 12 of the IBC stipulates the timeline within which the CIRP is to be completed.

The RP on the instructions of the CoC may make an application for extension of the CIRP. Regulation 40A of the CIRP Regulations provides a detailed model timeline for CIRP which accounts for all the procedural eventualities that are permitted by the statute and the regulations. Regulation 40A is extracted below:

―40-A. Model time-line for corporate insolvency resolution process.--The following Table presents a model timeline of corporate insolvency resolution process on the assumption that the interim resolution professional is appointed on the date of commencement of the process and the time available is hundred and eighty days:

Section/ Regulation Description of Norm Latest Activity Timeline

Section 16(1) Commencement of .... T CIRP and appointment of IRP

Regulation 6(1) Public Within 3 Days T+3 announcement of Appointment inviting claims of IRP

Section Submission of For 14 T+14 15(1)(c)/Regulations claims Days from 6(2)(c) and 12 (1) Appointment of IRP

Regulation 12(2) Submission Up to 90th day T+90 of claims of commencement

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -13-

Regulation 13(1) Verification of Within 7 days T+21 claims received from the receipt under Regulation of the claim 12(1) Verification of T+97 claims received under Regulation 12(2) Section 21(6A) Application Within 2 days T+23

(b)/Regulation 16-A for from verification appointment of claims of AR received under Regulation 17(1) Report certifying Regulation 12(1) T+23 constitution of CoC

Section 1st meeting of Within 7 days T+30] 22/Regulation 19(2) the CoC of filing of the report certifying constitution of the CoC, but with five days' notice.

Section 22(2) Resolution to by In the first T+30 appoint RP meeting of the the CoC CoC

Section 16(5) Appointment of On approval by ......

RP the AA Regulation 17(3) IRP performs the If RP is not T+40 functions of RP till appointed by the RP is appointed. 40th day of commencement Regulation 27 Appointment of Within 7 days T+47] valuer of appointment of RP, but not later than 47th day of commencement Section Submission Before issue of W 12(A)/Regulation of application EoI 30-A for withdrawal application admitted

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -14-

CoC to dispose of Within 7 days W+7 the application of its receipt or 7 days of constitution of CoC, whichever is later.

Filing application of Within 3 days W+10 withdrawal, if of approval by approved by CoC CoC with 90% majority voting, by RP to AA Regulation 35-A RP to form an Within 75 days T+75 opinion on of the preferential and commencement other transactions RP to make a Within 115 T+115 determination on days of preferential and commencement other transactions RP to file Within 135 T+135 applications to AA days of

for appropriate relief commencement Regulation 36 (1) Submission of IM to Within 2 weeks T+54 CoC of appointment of RP, but not later than 54th day of commencement Regulation 36-A Publish Form G Within 75 days T+75 of Invitation of EoI commencement Submission of EoI At least 15 T+90 days from issue of EoI (Assume 15 days) Provisional List of Within 10 days T+100 RAs by RP from the last day of receipt of EoI Submission of For 5 days from T+105 objections to the date of provisional list provisional list Final List of RAs by Within 10 days T+115 RP of the receipt of objections

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -15-

Regulation 36-B Issue of RFRP, Within 5 days T+105 including Evaluation of the issue of Matrix and IM the provisional list Receipt of At least 30 T+135 Resolution Plans days from issue of RFRP (Assume 30 days) Regulation 39(4) Submission of CoC As soon as T+165 approved Resolution approved by Plan to AA the CoC Section 31(1) Approval of T=180 Resolution plan by AA AA: Adjudicating Authority; AR: Authorised Representative; CIRP: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process; CoC: Committee of Creditors; EoI: Expression of Interest; IM: Information Memorandum; IRP: Interim Resolution Professional; RA: Resolution Applicant; RP:

Resolution Professional; RFRP: Request for Resolution Plan.‖

10. The Minutes of the 12th COC Meeting established that the CoC offered

to the Appellant to continue to be a part of the ongoing process so that it

may have an opportunity at any later stage. The Appellant had sought 15

minutes time for discussion and thereafter decided not to participate in the

open bidding process and exited the Meeting. Thereafter the CoC went on to

approve the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Om Logistics Ltd./R-8. We

find force in the contention of the Learned Counsels for the Respondent that

if one of the Directors of the Appellant Company Mr. Naresh Agarwal had

tested Covid positive, there are no substantial reasons given for any of the

other five Directors not to have represented their matter.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -16-

11. Going a little bit more in detail, the material on record shows that the

financial bid submitted by the Appellant as on 31.07.2020 and the revised

bid submitted on 02.09.2020 read as follows:

Sl. Particulars Plan as on Revised Plan as No. 31.07.020 on 02.09.2020 1 CIRP Cost-unpaid if any - 00.50 2 Secured Financial Creditor 10.98 28.48 3 Unrelated Operational Creditor 00.01 00.01 4 Unsecured Financial Creditor 00.01 00.01 5 Workman & Employee - -

Total Financial Bid 11.00 29.00

12. It is seen from the aforenoted table that even 10 days prior to the 12th

Meeting of the CoC, the revised Plan was Rs.29 Crs. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 'CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd.' Vs. 'Satish Gupta & Ors.' (2019)

SCC OnLine SC 1478 held as follows:

After a resolution plan is approved by the requisite majority of the Committee of Creditors, the aforesaid plan must then pass muster of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction is circumscribed by Section 30(2) of the Code. In this context, the decision of this court in K. Sashidhar (supra) is of great relevance......

45. Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be limited to the power exercisable by the resolution professional under Section 30(2) of the I&B Code or, at best, by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) under Section 31(2) read with 31(1) of the I&B Code. No other inquiry would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction bestowed upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation to the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the I&B Code, which is limited to matters ―other than‖ enquiry into the autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT) have been endowed with limited jurisdiction as specified in the I&B Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise plenary powers...................................................................

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -17-

48. Thus, it is clear that the limited judicial review available, which can in no circumstance trespass upon a business decision of the majority of the Committee of Creditors, has to be within the four corners of Section 30(2) of the Code, insofar as the Adjudicating Authority is concerned, and Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the Code, insofar as the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, the parameters of such review having been clearly laid down in K. Sashidhar (supra).

(Emphasis Supplied)

13. In a catena of Judgements, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that

the provisions investing jurisdiction and authority in the NCLT has not made

the commercial decision exercised by the CoC of not approving the

Resolution Plan or rejecting the same, justiciable. So, in the instant case, if

CoC has approved with 66% majority as provided under Section 12(2) of the

Code and has decided not to extend the time to the Appellant herein on the

ground that several extensions have already been given, the RP cannot take

any contrary decision. Therefore the contention of the Learned Counsel for

the Appellant that the RP has not given sufficient advance time for the

meeting and has acted contrary to provisions of IBC, is untenable.

14. Additionally, the Appellant had not chosen to exercise their choice of

participating in the open bidding process and chose to exit the Meeting and

even accepted the refund of the EMD amount. Having regard to the fact that

the Resolution Plan is already implemented, there is a change in the

directorship, new shares have been allotted, the concerned Banks/'Financial

Creditor' have released the charge on the security and have given their NOC,

are of the considered view that it would defeat the scope and objective of the

Code if the clock is turned back. Hence, we are of the considered view that

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021 -18-

the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons

Private Limited' Vs. 'Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

& Ors.' (2021) 166 SCL 237 (SC) and also in 'Ebix Singapore Private

Limited' Vs. 'Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited &

Anr.' 2021 SCC OnLine SC 707, is squarely applicable to the facts of this

case.

15. For all the aforenoted reasons, this Appeal fails and is accordingly

dismissed. No Order as to Costs.

16. The Registry is directed to upload the Judgement on the website of

this Tribunal and send the copy of this Judgement to the Learned

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench)

forthwith.

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI 17th January, 2022

ha

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2021