2021 (6) TMI 278 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Promoter Director ordered to submit Resolution Plan promptly to conclude Insolvency Process

K. Satheesh Babu Rajesh Versus George Varkey RP of Propyl Packaging Limited

The Tribunal disposed of the application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, directing the applicant, a Promoter Director of ... Seeking exclusion from CIRP Period - applicant's contention is that the CIRP of Corporate Debtor can end after the submission of Resolution Plan by applicant and its consideration by CoC - HELD THAT:- The period granted has been expired on 4th May, 2021 and that even though more than three weeks expired thereafter, the applicant has not filed the Resolution Plan. When this was brought to the notice of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, she has stated that at least a short time may be granted to submit the Resolution Plan. The learned counsel for the Resolution Professional stated that if a short period is granted by this Tribunal, the Resolution Professional is ready to accept the Resolution Plan, so that he can place the same before the CoC for its consideration. In view of the fact that more than one month has already availed by the applicant to submit the Resolution Plan, with the mutual consent of the parties, this I.A is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to submit the Resolution Plan within one week from the date of receipt of this order - Application disposed off. Issues: Application under Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 regarding extension of timelines for CIRP due to COVID-19 situation.Analysis:1. The application was filed by the Promoter Director of the Corporate Debtor under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking various reliefs based on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the extension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant argued that the decision of the Supreme Court extends to IBC timelines, allowing the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor to conclude after the submission of the Resolution Plan by the applicant and its consideration by the CoC.2. The application was filed following a previous order of the Tribunal, directing the Resolution Professional to accept the Resolution Plan submitted by the applicant within 30 days of the request. During the hearing, both parties were represented by their respective counsels, and the matter was discussed through video conferencing.3. The Resolution Professional highlighted that the applicant had not submitted the Resolution Plan within the specified timeframe, even after an extension. The applicant's counsel requested for additional time to submit the plan. In response, the Resolution Professional expressed readiness to accept the plan if a short period was granted by the Tribunal.4. Considering the circumstances and the delay in submitting the Resolution Plan, the Tribunal disposed of the application with a directive for the applicant to submit the plan within one week from the date of the order. It was emphasized that no further extensions would be granted for the submission. The Resolution Professional was instructed to present the plan to the Committee of Creditors promptly to ensure the timely conclusion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.This detailed analysis of the Tribunal's judgment provides insights into the legal proceedings concerning the extension of timelines for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in light of the COVID-19 situation, highlighting the responsibilities of the parties involved and the Tribunal's directives to expedite the resolution process.