Tribunal denies renewable energy company's late application to participate in corporate debtor's CIR process under IBC, 2016.

The Tribunal dismissed the interlocutory application, denying the renewable energy company's request to participate in the CIR process of the corporate debtor under IBC, 2016. Despite citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for missing the deadline, the applicant failed to submit the required documents within the extended timelines. Emphasizing the importance of adherence to submission deadlines as per regulations, the Tribunal held that late submissions cannot be entertained, leading to the rejection of the application for participation.

---

---

Issues:
Interlocutory application seeking permission to participate in CIR process of corporate debtor under IBC, 2016.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicant's Submission:
The applicant, a renewable energy company, sought permission to participate in the CIR process of the corporate debtor despite missing the deadline for submitting the resolution plan. The applicant argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the CIRP period was extended, and they should be allowed to submit their resolution plan. They cited instances where belated submissions were accepted by other benches of NCLT. The applicant emphasized that allowing them to participate would not prejudice any party.

2. Respondent's Reply:
The Resolution Professional denied the applicant's allegations and highlighted the timeline of events, including extensions granted for the submission of EOI and resolution plans. They pointed out that the applicant's EOI was rejected as it was submitted after the specified deadline, in line with Regulation 36(6) of IBBI Regulations, 2016. The Respondent also referenced a similar case from the NCLT Bangalore Bench to support their argument.

3. Applicant's Counsel Argument:
The applicant's counsel argued that rejecting the resolution plan solely based on technicalities without considering its merits goes against the spirit of the IBC. They referred to a Mumbai Bench decision that prioritized the Code's objective over regulations. The counsel contended that the applicant's participation would maximize asset value, and they were ready to submit a resolution plan promptly upon receiving the RFRP.

4. Respondent's Counsel Counter-Argument:
The Respondent's counsel opposed the application, highlighting the adherence to the prescribed timeline for EOI and resolution plan submissions. They emphasized that the applicant's EOI was beyond the deadline and cited regulations prohibiting consideration of late submissions. The counsel also mentioned a NCLT Bangalore Bench decision supporting the rejection of late EOIs.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal noted the sequence of events, extensions granted, and the applicant's failure to submit either EOI or resolution plan within the extended deadlines. Citing Regulation 36(A)(6) and a NCLAT decision, the Tribunal concluded that late submissions cannot be entertained, and COC cannot consider them. Consequently, the application was dismissed as the applicant's request for participation was beyond the prescribed timeline, leading to rejection.

This detailed analysis outlines the arguments presented by both parties, the regulatory framework governing the submission timelines, and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal provisions involved in the case.

---