Resolution Professional Of M/S Diamond ... vs Bank Of India Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 41 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority, in rejecting an application for exclusion of time from the corporate insolvency resolution process, must give reasons for refusing the request; a rejection that gives no reasons, and merely directs completion of the process within a fixed period, cannot stand and is liable to be set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 41 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: M/s Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. Bank of India ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Udit Gupta, Mr. Masoom Shah, Mr. Akshay Goel, Mr. Anup Jain, Advocates
For Respondent: None
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
18.01.2022: Heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Learned Sr. Counsel for the
Appellant. She submits that 'Bank of India' is a proforma party, hence, new
notice need not be issued to it.
2. Bank of India was part of the CoC which has passed resolution on
03.12.2021 for seeking 35 days' exclusion from CIRP for which the IA was
filed by RP being IA No. 02/2022 which has been rejected by the impugned
order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. We have perused the impugned order as well as the application filed by
the Appellant for seeking exclusion of 35 days. The Adjudicating Authority
by the impugned order has not given any reason for not accepting the request
of the Appellant for exclusion of 35 days but directions have been issued to
RP to complete the process within two weeks from the said dates.
4. The application which has been filed by the Appellant indicates that
there was an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 06.09.2021 by
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 41 of 2022 1 which RP and CoC were directed not to take final call which order could be
vacated only on 13.12.2021.
5. It is further submitted that on 17.11.2021, 60 days' exclusion was
granted by the Adjudicating Authority and after Resolution of the CoC on
23.12.2021, the application was filed seeking exclusion of 35 days.
6. We are of the view that sufficient grounds have been made for exclusion
of 35 days' which has not been adverted by the Adjudicating Authority in
rejecting the application and issuing direction for completing the process
within two weeks. No reason has been given as to why the prayer cannot be
acceded to. We set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and
allow the IA No. 02/2021 and direct for exclusion of 35 days for CIRP. The
appeal is allowed accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 41 of 2022 2
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