Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Resolution Professional Of M/S Diamond ... vs Bank Of India Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal18 January 2022Ashok Bhushan

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