Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mekaster Finlease Limited vs Temple Leasing And Finance Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal5 July 2023Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority was right to refuse exclusion of the 390-day period from the CIRP period where the Committee of Creditors' liquidation application had earlier been rejected with liberty to file a fresh application, and the applicant instead sought exclusion of time rather than filing that fresh application.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 803 of 2023&I.A. No. 2711 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

Mekaster Finlease Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Temple Leasing and Finance Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mohd Nazim Khan, Shubham Agarwal, Shahbaz Khan, Advocates For Respondent:

ORDER

05.07.2023: I.A. No. 2711 of 2022. This is an application praying for

condonation of 11 days delay in filing the Appeal.

2. Ground taken in the Application is that Appellant received certified copy

of the Impugned Order on 26th April, 2023 and thereafter certified copy of the

I.A. was received on 30th May, 2023. Due to said reasons, delay has been

caused.

3. Sufficient cause has been shown. Delay is condoned.

4. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 13th April, 2023

passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting I.A. No. 803 of 2023.

5. In the present case, Committee of Creditors has already taken a decision

to file Liquidation Application on 15th December, 2021 thereafter an

Application was filed by the Resolution Professional for liquidation which was

not entertained by Order dated 19th December, 2022 on the ground that -2-

Application is not complete. Liberty was granted to the RP to file fresh

application.

6. The Appellant before us has filed Resolution Plan which was not

approved thereafter an application was filed praying for exclusion of 390 days

from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP in short) period which

application has now been rejected.

7. Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant has given the

Resolution Plan and still desirous to increase the amount.

8. We have heard the Appellant and perused the record.

9. The Adjudicating Authority has refused to exclude the period of 390

days from the CIRP Period noticing the fact that by order dated 19th December,

2022 liquidation application was rejected with liberty to file fresh application

and instead of filing fresh application for liquidation, application for exclusion

has been filed. We thus do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating

Authority rejecting I.A. No. 803 of 2023. No grounds made out to interfere with

the Order. The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 803/2023

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