Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Union Bank Of India vs Satya Narayana Guddeti & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal25 September 2023Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A Resolution Professional may apply to the Adjudicating Authority for extension of the CIRP period, and such an application cannot be rejected merely because a liberty to seek extension was granted by the Supreme Court to other persons (the appellants before it), since that liberty does not preclude the Resolution Professional from making the application. Where the Committee of Creditors has instructed the Resolution Professional to seek an extension, and resolution plans have already been received which require voting, extension of the CIRP period for a further 60 days is justified in the interests of justice.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1246 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

Union Bank of India ...Appellant

Versus

Satya Narayan Guddeti & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Manas Gupta, Mr. Aamir Shaikh and Mr. Arun Kr. Shukla, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Parmar, Advocate for R-1 (Liquidator).

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1261 of 2023 & I.A. No.4452 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Govind Prasad Todi & Anr. ...Appellant

Versus

Satya Narayan Guddeti ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Parmar, Advocate for R-1 (Liquidator).

ORDER

25.09.2023: These two appeals have been filed against the same order

passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 24.07.2023 by which the

Cont'd.../ -2-

Adjudicating Authority has rejected I.A./2889/ND/2023 filed by the

Resolution Professional for extension of 60 days' time from the date of expiry

of CIRP i.e. from 16.05.2023 for allowing the CoC to consider and vote upon

approval of Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority has given two

grounds to reject the application. Firstly, the Adjudicating Authority has

observed that the extension of time till 15.05.2023 was given by the Appellate

Tribunal by order of this Tribunal dated 14.02.2023 in Company Appeal (AT)

(Ins.) No. 1125 of 2022, hence, it is only the Appellate Tribunal which can

extend the time. It was further observed that against the order of this Tribunal

in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1125 of 2022, an appeal was filed before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2023 which was

dismissed as withdrawn on 24.03.2023 and liberty was granted for applying

for extension of time but said liberty was granted to Govind Prasad Todi and

Siddhartha Todi who were Appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence,

the Resolution Professional could not have filed application.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel for the Respondent - Liquidator. It is submitted by learned counsel

for the Appellant that the Resolution Professional has filed application on the

instruction of the CoC, which decided to seek extension since two plans were

already received which have to be voted upon.

3. This Tribunal by its order passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1125

of 2022 has extended the CIRP for a period of 90 days which order was

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1246 of 2023 & 1261 of 2023 -3-

challenged by Govind Prasad Todi and Siddhartha Todi before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2023, where the Hon'ble Supreme

Court passed following order on 24.03.2023:

"ORDER

After arguing the matter for some time, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants seeks leave to withdraw this appeal with a liberty that if occasion arises, he may be permitted to apply for extension of time.

With the aforesaid liberty, the civil appeal is dismissed as withdrawn."

4. The liberty was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to apply for

extension of time. Extension of time in the CIRP has to be applied by the

Resolution Professional who is the official conducting the CIRP and further

when CoC has instructed the Resolution Professional to seek extension of 60

days, we are of the view the application could not have been rejected only on

the ground that Govind Prasad Todi and Siddhartha Todi who were granted

liberty, who have not filed the application. The liberty was granted to Govind

Prasad Todi and Siddhartha Todi to also file application for extension but the

order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not preclude the Resolution

Professional to make application for extension of time.

5. In the facts of the present case, when in the CIRP plans have already

been received which have to be voted upon, we are of the view that ends of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1246 of 2023 & 1261 of 2023 -4-

justice shall be served in extending the period of CIRP for 60 days as prayed

for in I.A. No. 2889 of 2023. In result, we allow both the Appeals. Set aside

order dated 24.07.2023 and allow I.A. No. 2889 of 2023 and grant extension

of further 60 days period from today.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1246 of 2023 & 1261 of 2023

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