Neel Metal Products Ltd vs Ca Nirav Tarkas Resolution ...

Neel Metal Products Ltd. ....Appellant Vs.

CA Nirav Tarkas & Anr. ...Respondents

For Appellant: Mr. Tirth Nayak, Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. Tanuj Sud, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Ms. Harshita Ahluwalia, Ms. Stuti Vatsa, Advocates.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

28.07.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dared 21.06.2022 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad

Bench, Court-2, by which Adjudicating Authority has allowed I.A 467 of 2022

filed by the Resolution Professional seeking further extension of 60 days of

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) after expiry of 330 days.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is one of

the Prospective Resolution Applicants and there were five plans before the

Committee of Creditors (CoC) on which voting was also commenced. At that

stage, CoC decided to call for fresh bids and requested for extension of time.

It is submitted that there was no ground in the present case for extension of 2

60 days' time when 330 days have already expired. It is submitted that the

present is not a case of an extraordinary situation where any exception can be

taken to 330 days' limit. He submits that the procedure adopted by the CoC

is only to get plan back door.

4. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant

and perused the record.

5. The Adjudicating Authority in the order has observed that in the 15th

meeting of the CoC held on 17.05.2022, CoC in its commercial wisdom decided

and resolved to call for fresh bids and after deliberation resolved for seeking

extension of 60 days. The said decision to invite fresh bids was taken with

100% voting shares of the CoC. The CoC in its commercial wisdom has taken

decision to call for fresh bids for which purpose 60 days' extension has been

granted. We are of the view that in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, no

grounds have been made out to interfere with the decision taken by the

Adjudicating Authority granting 60 days. It is well settled that maximum

period for CIRP is 330 days but in exceptional cases the extension can be

granted even beyond 330 days. Present is a case where revised plans have

been invited in commercial wisdom of CoC. Hence, we do not find any error in

the order to entertain this Appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that CoC has issued fresh

Form-G inviting fresh plans after 330 days. We are of the view that the CoC

has been taken decision in its commercial wisdom which does not warrant any

interference.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 887 of 2022 3

The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 887 of 2022