M/S Mak Architecture - A Proprietorship ... vs Mr Trupalkumar Patel Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.989 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority is entitled to refuse to entertain a resolution applicant's plan, submitted after the prescribed time for expressions of interest and for submission of plans has expired, where the applicant failed to submit its expression of interest within the time allowed and the corporate insolvency resolution process has reached its final stage.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
MAK Architecture - A Proprietorship Firm ...Appellant
Versus
Trupalkumar Patel ...Respondents Resolution Professional of M/s. Heavy Metal and Tubes Ltd. & Ors.
For Appellant: Mr. Vishvanath Agarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Amit Singh Chaddha, S. Advocate with Mr. Anup Sayare (R1) Mr. Pavan S Godiawala (RP)
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
13.12.2021 Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed against the Order dated 06.09.2021 passed by National Company
Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Court - 2 in IA/407(AHM)2021 in CP(IB) 206 of
2019 by which Order the Application 407 of 2021 filed by the Applicant had
been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant had not submitted
the EOI within the time allowed and thereafter, the time for submitting the
Plan had also elapsed. Thereafter, the Applicant came with an Application to
accept his Plan before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority
has refused to allow the Application and has observed that CIRP is at the final
stage.
2
The Adjudicating Authority has committed no error in rejecting the
Application filed by the Applicant since the Appellant could not submit the
EOI within the prescribed time.
There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) rs/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.989 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