2020 (9) TMI 1073 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal restarts CIRP, appoints new IRP to address delays. Legal hurdles justify exclusion of time.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited Versus Inter Labs (India) Private Limited

The Tribunal decided to start the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) afresh from the current date due to legal proceedings and the restoration ... Direction for change of IRP in respect of M/s. Inter Labs (India) Private Limited / Corporate Debtor - exclusion of time from 22.08.2017 till date of appointment of IRP from the CIRP period - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority can exclude a certain period for the purpose of counting total period of CIRP, if circumstances justify such exclusion. Here is the case, where considerable time of more than two years have been lost due to reasons stated aforesaid. We are of the considered view that since admission order has been restored to the file of this Tribunal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the CIRP to start afresh from today. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process to start afresh from today i.e. 25.02.2020. That the public announcement of the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process shall be made immediately as prescribed under section 13 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Application allowed. Issues involved:Change of IRP in respect of Corporate Debtor, exclusion of time from CIRP period, appointment of new IRP, extension of CIRP period, legal hurdles faced by erstwhile IRP, exclusion of time from CIRP, starting CIRP afresh.Analysis:1. Change of IRP and Exclusion of Time from CIRP Period:The Petitioner filed a memo seeking a change of IRP for the Corporate Debtor and exclusion of time from the CIRP period due to legal proceedings. The Tribunal noted the history of appeals and orders passed by different authorities, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and NCLAT. The Petitioner requested to appoint a new IRP and exclude the time lost in legal proceedings to extend the CIRP period. The Tribunal considered the restoration of the admission order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decided to start the CIRP afresh from the current date.2. Appointment of New IRP:The Tribunal observed that the Operational Creditor failed to name an Interim Resolution Professional and requested the Tribunal to appoint one to avoid delays in the process. Following the recommendation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, the Tribunal appointed Mr. P V B Sudhakararao as the Interim Resolution Professional. The appointed professional was required to file necessary documents with the Registrar within a specified time frame.3. Legal Hurdles Faced by Erstwhile IRP:The Tribunal acknowledged that the erstwhile IRP faced legal hurdles preventing any action, as highlighted in previous orders. The restoration of the admission order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court necessitated the IRP to commence the process immediately. The Tribunal referred to relevant legal provisions and orders to justify the exclusion of a certain period from the CIRP due to unforeseen circumstances and legal interventions.4. Extension of CIRP Period and Starting Afresh:Considering the considerable time lost in legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided that the CIRP should start afresh from the current date. The public announcement of the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was mandated, and the functions of the Interim Resolution Professional were outlined as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal emphasized the need to follow the prescribed procedures to ensure the effective resolution of the Corporate Debtor's insolvency.In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of changing the IRP, excluding time from the CIRP period, appointing a new IRP, overcoming legal hurdles, extending the CIRP period, and starting the process afresh. The detailed analysis considered the legal history, relevant orders, and procedural requirements to facilitate a smooth and effective Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.