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>Resolution Professional's Authority to Seek Extension Confirmed by Supreme Court</h1> <h3>Union Bank of India Versus Satya Narayan Guddeti & Ors. And Govind Prasad Todi & Anr. Versus Satya Narayan Guddeti</h3> Union Bank of India Versus Satya Narayan Guddeti & Ors. And Govind Prasad Todi & Anr. Versus Satya Narayan Guddeti - TMI Issues:The judgment involves the rejection of an application for extension of time in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by the Adjudicating Authority, based on the grounds that only the Appellate Tribunal had the authority to extend the time. The Resolution Professional filed the application on the instruction of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to allow consideration and voting on the Resolution Plan.Details of the Judgment:1. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application for extension of 60 days from the expiry of CIRP, citing that the Appellate Tribunal had previously extended the time till a certain date. An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn with liberty granted to apply for an extension. However, the liberty was granted to specific individuals, not the Resolution Professional who filed the application. 2. The Resolution Professional filed the application on the CoC's instruction, as two plans were already received and needed to be voted upon. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on the technicality of the individuals granted liberty by the Supreme Court, rather than considering the CoC's decision.3. The Appellate Tribunal had previously extended the CIRP for 90 days, which was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted liberty to specific individuals to apply for an extension, but it did not restrict the Resolution Professional from seeking an extension.4. The judgment emphasized that the Resolution Professional, being the official conducting the CIRP, was authorized to apply for an extension of time, especially when instructed by the CoC. The rejection solely based on the individuals granted liberty by the Supreme Court was deemed unjust, considering the plans awaiting voting.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's order and granting the extension of 60 days from the date of the judgment. The decision aimed to serve the ends of justice, especially with pending Resolution Plans that required voting within the extended period.This summary highlights the key issues, arguments, and decisions made in the judgment regarding the rejection of the application for extension of time in the CIRP.
TaxTMI 