Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta vs Respondent
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 879 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority is entitled to refuse a further extension of the time for completing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, including a prayer for exclusion of time under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, where the process has already run for more than three years, earlier exclusions have been granted, and no concrete progress has been made, notwithstanding that the delay is attributed to non-cooperation by the directors of the corporate debtor rather than to the Resolution Professional.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Satya Prakash Gupta, ...Appellant Resolution Professional
Versus
.......... ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Mani Gupta, Advocate For Respondent:
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
28.07.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 20th June, 2022
passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the I.A. No. 1875/(ND)/2022
filed by the Resolution Professional seeking exclusion of 210 days and
extension of 90 days for completion of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process' (CIRP in short). The Adjudicating Authority has noted that by an
earlier Order passed on 20th January, 2020 exclusion of 794 days was granted.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no fault of the
Resolution Professional in proceeding with the Corporate Insolvency -2-
Resolution Process since cooperation has not been received from the Directors
of the Corporate Debtor.
4. Be that as it may, the Adjudicating Authority has noted that more than
three years have elapsed and nothing concrete has been done.
5. In view of the aforesaid, no error has been committed by the
Adjudicating Authority in refusing the prayer made by the Resolution
Professional, when no headway has been made in the CIRP and more than
three years have elapsed. We see no reason to interfere with the Impugned
Order. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice M. Satayanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 879/2022
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