TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Extends CIRP Period, Requires Cooperation from Respondents</h1> <h3>EN Sakthidharan Menon Versus Tecpro Infra-Projects Ltd.</h3> EN Sakthidharan Menon Versus Tecpro Infra-Projects Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:1. Extension of CIRP period beyond 180 days2. Directions against Respondents to cooperate with the applicant3. Amendment in the application seeking relief against specific respondents4. Submission of audited financials for liquidation petitionExtension of CIRP period beyond 180 days:In the first issue, the applicant sought an extension of 90 days beyond the initial 180-day period of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The applicant mentioned that the Resolution dated 17.03.2020 was approved by 77.83% of the voting share of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Additionally, the CoC had decided on liquidation before the expiry of the CIRP period. Based on these submissions, the Tribunal extended the CIRP period by 90 days from 24.03.2020.Directions against Respondents to cooperate with the applicant:The second issue involved an application where the applicant requested directions against the Respondents to cooperate. The applicant's counsel stated that notices had been served to the Respondents, and responses were received. However, during the hearing, no representatives from the Respondents appeared. Despite some information being provided, the Tribunal directed the Respondents to cooperate with the Resolution Professional (RP) and furnish the required information within two weeks.Amendment in the application seeking relief against specific respondents:In the third issue, the applicant filed an amended application under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, seeking to amend the relief against specific respondents. The applicant narrowed down the relief sought only against respondent No. 4, leading to a request to delete the names of respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 from the application. Initially allowing the amendment and deletion, the Tribunal later recalled the order to delete the names of respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The applicant was directed to serve the amended application to all respondents.Submission of audited financials for liquidation petition:The final issue centered around a petition for liquidation, where the petitioner was directed to submit audited financials for FYs 2019-20 and 2020-21. Discussions during the hearing highlighted the company's financial status, including total assets, short-term loans, current liabilities, and the possibility of exploring options to maintain the company as a going concern. The petitioner was advised to respond to queries related to the balance sheet within two weeks, with the matter listed for a future date.These detailed analyses cover the various issues addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decisions and directions in each scenario.
TaxTMI 