Extension of CIRP Period Justified; Resolution Plan Approval Upheld Despite Eligibility Criteria Flexibility

The Adjudicating Authority extended the CIRP period, justifying the 32-day exclusion due to COVID and pending plan approval. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The Tribunal confirmed the Resolution Applicant's eligibility despite not meeting all Real Estate Project criteria in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, as flexibility was allowed. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's claim of ineligibility and dismissed their appeal, along with the application to submit a plan. The Resolution Plan's approval, supported by a 76.35% vote share from the CoC, was upheld, leading to the dismissal of both Appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Extension of CIRP period
2. Approval of Resolution Plan

Extension of CIRP period:
The Adjudicating Authority extended the CIRP period from 24.04.2022 to 26.05.2022, allowing a 32-day exclusion period between the 17th CoC meeting and the filing of the application for approval of the Resolution Plan. The extension was justified due to the COVID period and pending plan approval, warranting exclusion of the period. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in this decision and upheld the Authority's order.

Approval of Resolution Plan:
The Appellant challenged the approval of the Resolution Plan by KGK Realty (India) Private Limited, alleging the Applicant's lack of eligibility. However, the Resolution Applicant fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per Form G, having completed Real Estate Projects exceeding 60 Lakhs Sq.ft, although not all in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. The Tribunal noted that the word "preferably" in the eligibility criteria allowed flexibility, and the Resolution Applicant was deemed eligible by the CoC. The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the Appellant's claim of ineligibility was unfounded. Additionally, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the Appellant's application to submit a plan, as previous similar requests were dismissed due to untimely filings and lack of eligibility. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the approval of the Resolution Plan, which was endorsed by the CoC with a 76.35% vote share. Consequently, both Appeals were dismissed.

---