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>Extension of CIRP Period Justified; Resolution Plan Approval Upheld Despite Eligibility Criteria Flexibility</h1> <h3>Mr. Suhrahmanya Shinde, Erstwhile/Suspended Director of M/s. Anudan Properties Pvt. Ltd. Versus Mr. Jayesh Sanghrajka, KGK Realty (India) Pvt Ltd, Committee of Creditors</h3> The Adjudicating Authority extended the CIRP period, justifying the 32-day exclusion due to COVID and pending plan approval. The Appellate Tribunal upheld ... Extension of CIRP period - approval of the Resolution Plan - Appellant challenging the orders contends that there is no justification for allowing the exclusion ex-post facto and 24.04.2022 was last date for period of CIRP - HELD THAT:- Coming to order dated 29.03.2023 by which the Adjudicating Authority has extended the period of CIRP from 24.04.2022 to 26.05.2022 i.e. 32 days, it is suffice to mention that on 24.04.2022 in the 17th CoC meeting of CoC plans were already discussed and were to be voted upon and application has to be filed before the Adjudicating Authority for approval. 26.05.2022 is that date when the application was filed by the Resolution Professional for approval of the Resolution Plan. 24.04.2022 being last date for CIRP, on which date plans were already discussed, exclusion of 32 days lapsed between 17th CoC meeting and filing of application by Resolution Professional has rightly been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly noticed that the CIRP in the present case commenced during the COVID period and Adjudicating Authority also noticed that the application for approval of the plan is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority which may result in resolution of the Corporate Debtor, case has been made out for exclusion of the period from 24.04.2022 to 26.05.2022 - there are no error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority granting exclusion of period from 24.04.2022 to 26.05.2022. There is no infirmity in the order dated 29.03.2022 which may warrant interference by this Appellate Tribunal. Approval of the Resolution Plan - principal submission advanced by the Appellant is that the Resolution Applicant is not eligible to submit the Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- The Committee of Creditors in its commercial wisdom has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by KGK Realty (India) Private Limited with vote share of 76.35% - there are no reason to interfere with the decision of Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order. Both the Appeals are dismissed. Issues:1. Extension of CIRP period2. Approval of Resolution PlanExtension 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
