Rbl Bank Ltd vs Nimai Gautam Shah

Nimai Gautam Shah Resolution Professional of Sintex Plastics Technology Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

RBL Bank Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Naveen Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Garg, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Chitranshul Sinha, Advocate.

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.89 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

RBL Bank Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Nimai Gautam Shah Resolution Professional of Sintex Plastics Technology Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Chitranshul Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Naveen Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Garg, Advocate

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

30.01.2024: These two appeals have been filed against the impugned

order dated 18.12.2023 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has

dismissed I.A. No.1303(AHM)/2023 filed by the Resolution Professional. In

the application following prayers were made:

Cont'd.../ -2-

"This is an application filed by the RP seeking the following prayers:-

A. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this present Application;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to exclude 3 months/90 Days from the CIRP period of the Corporate Debtor being M/s Sintex Plastics Technology Ltd;

C. That Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further Orders as may deem just and proper in the interest of justice;"

2. The application was filed by the Resolution Professional for exclusion of

90 days on the basis of the resolution of the CoC dated 25.10.2023. In the

application, which is part of the appeal, there was statement that there were

three Resolution Plans which have been received. It was pleaded that certain

time is required to consult legal counsel and obtain their legal opinion and get

agreements drafted. The said averments were made in the Para 8.2, which is

to the following effect:

"8.2. It was discussed in the said COC meeting that the RP has received 3 Prospective Resolution Applicants and respective authorised representative of PRA's had also attended the 4th CoC meeting.

However, the COC had informed the RP that due to various Legal complications involved in all the Resolution Plans, the COC would have to consult their Legal Counsel and obtain their legal opinion and get agreements drafted and for that purpose time would be required. The COC therein requested the RP to defer

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.82 of 2024 & 89 of 2024 -3-

the voting upon the Resolution Plans till the next COC meeting."

3. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application observing that there

is no ground mentioned in the application on which period can be excluded

from the CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority has not considered the averments

in the application as noticed above. The mere fact that earlier IRP was also

competent to carry out process but it was not done, was not relevant

consideration. More so when Resolution Plans were received in the process

which were required to be considered, for the purpose of fulfilling the object of

the IBC, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have been granted

exclusion/extension of time. It is further submitted that by that date 330

days' period was not over.

4. We in the facts of the present case are of the view that ends of justice be

served in disposing of this Appeal grating extension of 60 days' period from

today to complete the entire process. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned

order dated 18.12.2023 is set aside. I.A. No.1303(AHM)/2023 is allowed to

the extent of extension of 60 days' period to complete the process in the CIRP.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.82 of 2024 & 89 of 2024