Hemendra Paliwal vs Denovo Enterprises Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 114 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The statutory maximum period of 330 days for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process, including any extension granted, having been exceeded, and the extension already having been granted together with an exclusion ordered by the Supreme Court, an Adjudicating Authority is not bound to grant a further extension of the CIRP period where no resolution plan has been received; a refusal of such an extension, in those circumstances, does not warrant appellate interference.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hemendra Paliwal, Resolution Professional of Denovo ....Appellant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Denovo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent For Appellant: Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Advocate For Respondent:
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
04.02.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated
30.11.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court-III rejecting I.A 2686/2021.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has filed an Application before the
Adjudicating Authority for extension of the period in the Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process. The Adjudicating Authority has noticed that
900 days have already been over and CIRP costs has crossed about Rs.90
Lakhs and the total exposure of Financial Creditor is about Rs. 25 Lakh
only. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the amount of Rs.90
Lakhs as noticed has not been approved by the CoC.
4. Be that as it may, the period of 900 days has already been passed and
the extension was already granted including exclusion granted by the 2
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2822/2020 vide its judgment and
order dated 14.12.2020. From the record, it does not appear that any
Resolution Plan has yet been received. We see no reason to interfere with the
order of the Adjudicating Authority refusing extension of period of CIRP.
5. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 114 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