Adjudicating Authority Emphasizes Timely Resolution under Insolvency Law

The Adjudicating Authority disapproved of the Resolution Professional (RP) and Committee of Creditors (CoC) for not adhering to the specified timeline and unilaterally extending the decision deadline in violation of the order. Despite criticizing their actions, immediate liquidation was not ordered due to the completed voting process. The Authority emphasized the importance of timely resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and directed the expedited conclusion of the process, stressing the need for strict adherence to resolution timelines and efficient proceedings. Injunction relief was not granted, but the judgment concluded without liquidation orders at that time.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of timeline specified in the order dated 16.03.2021 by RP and CoC; Allegations of illegal extension of decision on resolution plan; Request for liquidation order under section 33 of the Code.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought injunctions against the respondents from acting on the resolution plan beyond the specified timeline. The applicant alleged that the CoC did not vote on the resolution plan by 25.03.2021 as directed, leading to a request for liquidation. The applicant argued that allowing the submission of a fresh plan beyond the deadline was unlawful.

2. The Applicant's counsel contended that the CoC's actions post the timeline lapse were unauthorized, citing a Supreme Court decision emphasizing adherence to timelines in resolution plans. The RP, represented by another counsel, explained the sequence of CoC meetings and the subsequent modified plan submission, justifying the delay due to negotiations for plan improvements.

3. The Resolution Applicant's counsel defended against the violation allegation, stating that the order was initially at their instance. It was argued that the RP and CoC's failure to meet the deadline should not prejudice the Resolution Applicant's diligent efforts.

4. The Adjudicating Authority disapproved of the RP and CoC's actions for not adhering to the specified timeline and unilaterally extending the decision deadline. Despite the CIRP's extended timeline, the CoC's delay in approving the plan was deemed unjustified, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution under the IBC.

5. While refraining from ordering immediate liquidation due to the completed voting process, the Authority criticized the RP and CoC for prioritizing asset maximization over timeline compliance. The decision highlighted the need for strict adherence to resolution timelines and expressed displeasure at the presented situation.

6. The IA seeking injunction relief was not granted at the current stage, but the Authority directed the expedited conclusion of the entire process. The judgment emphasized the need for careful adherence to timelines and efficient resolution proceedings, concluding the matter without liquidation orders at the time.

---