Vandana Garg vs Reliance Capital Ltd. & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Vandana Garg .....Appellant Vs. Reliance Capital Ltd. & Anr. ......Respondents Present : For Appellant: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate, Ms. Isha J.Kumar, Ms. Shraddha Chaudhuri, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Anchit, Advocates

02.07.2019 - The Appellant ('Resolution Professional') of GVR Infra Projects

Limited on the instructions, the 'Committee of Creditors' moved an application

before the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal) (in short

'NCLT'), Division Bench, Chennai for exclusion of 35 days of delay in appointing

the 'Resolution Professional' in place of the 'Interim Resolution Professional' and

the period during which different applications were pending. Prayer was rejected

by impugned order dated 30th April, 2019 giving rise to the present case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that no

'Resolution Professional' function for 35 days after removal of 'Interim Resolution

Professional' which resulted delay in proceeding and calling for application from

...contd./ the 'Resolution Applicant'. It is further submitted that if the period is not

excluded in the absence of any viable or feasible, the Adjudicating Authority may

have to pass order of liquidation. Notice was issued on Respondent - 'Reliance

Capital Ltd.' and another. Inspite of service, nobody appeared.

The same issue fell before this Appellate Tribunal in "Quinn Logistics

India Pvt. Ltd., 2018, SCC Online, NCLAT - 243. Taking into consideration

the situation like aforesaid, this Appellate Tribunal observed and held as follows:

"9. From the decisions aforesaid, it is clear

that if an application is filed by the 'Resolution

Professional' or the 'Committee of Creditors' or

'any aggrieved person' for justified reasons, it

is always open to the Adjudicating

Authority/Appellate Tribunal to 'exclude

certain period' for the purpose of counting the

total period of 270 days, if the facts and

circumstances justify exclusion, in unforeseen

circumstances.

10. For example, for following good grounds

and unforeseen circumstances, the intervening

period can be excluded for counting of the total

period of 270 days of resolution process:-

COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY)NO. 603 OF 2019 2

(i) If the corporate insolvency resolution process is

stayed by 'a court of law or the Adjudicating Authority

or the Appellate Tribunal or the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(ii) If no 'Resolution Professional' is functioning for

one or other reason during the corporate insolvency

resolution process, such as removal.

(iii) The period between the date of order of

admission/moratorium is passed and the actual date

on which the 'Resolution Professional' takes charge for

completing the corporate insolvency resolution

process.

(iv) On hearing a case, if order is reserved by the

Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally pass order

enabling the 'Resolution Professional' to complete the

corporate insolvency resolution process.

(v) If the corporate insolvency resolution process is

set aside by the Appellate Tribunal or order of the

Appellate Tribunal is reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and corporate insolvency resolution process is

restored.

(vi) Any other circumstances which justifies

exclusion of certain period.

COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY)NO. 603 OF 2019 3 However, after exclusion of the period, if

further period is allowed the total number of days

cannot exceed 270 days which is the maximum

time limit prescribed under the Code."

In the present case, as the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' could

not proceed in the absence of 'Resolution Professional' for 35 days the case of

Appellant being covered by decision of this Appellate Tribunal in "Quinn

Logistics India Pvt. Ltd.", we allow the prayer as made in this appeal and

exclude the period of 35 days for the purpose of counting 180 days or 270 days

of 'Resolution Process'. We also exclude the period of pendency of 18 days during

which the application remained pending before the Adjudicating Authority.

Thereby, we exclude the total period of 53 days for the purpose of counting 180

days or 270 days.

Part of the impugned order dated 30th April, 2019 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority is set aside to the extent above. The rest part of the

impugned order is affirmed. The appeal is disposed of with aforesaid

observation and directions.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) ss/gc COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY)NO. 603 OF 2019 4