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>NCLAT upholds rejection of resolution plan for late submission beyond 17:00 hours deadline</h1> <h3>Mr. SANDEEP GUPTA Versus RAJIV BAJAJ For the Appellant: Mr. Karan Gandhi, Ms.</h3> Mr. SANDEEP GUPTA Versus RAJIV BAJAJ For the Appellant: Mr. Karan Gandhi, Ms. - TMI Issues:Challenge to rejection of Resolution Plan acceptance by Adjudicating Authority.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order dated 17.07.2023 by the Adjudicating Authority concerning the rejection of the Resolution Plan of the Appellant. The case involved the Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, M/s Diamond IT Infracon Private Limited, which commenced on 03.01.2023. Five Expression of Interest, including that of the Appellant - Sandeep Gupta, were received during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Resolution Professional sent the Information Memorandum and Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) to the Appellant on 26.04.2023, setting the deadline for submission as 27.05.2023. The CoC extended the submission deadline to 03.06.2023. However, the Resolution Plan of the Appellant was not considered, leading to the filing of I.A. No.3515 of 2023 seeking direction for its acceptance.During the hearing, it was revealed that the Resolution Professional had clearly communicated the deadline for submission of the Resolution Plan as 17:00 Hrs IST on the specified date. The time for submission was extended to 03.06.2023, as communicated to all Prospective Resolution Applicants. Despite this extension, the Appellant's staff reached the Resolution Professional's office after 05:30 PM on 03.06.2023. The Resolution Professional received a message from the Appellant's representative at 06:16 PM, indicating their presence for plan submission. Subsequently, an email was sent at 06:20 PM enclosing the Resolution Plan and other documents.In response, the Resolution Professional stated that the Resolution Plan was not delivered within the specified time, and he had left the office by 17:30 hours on the submission date. The Resolution Professional reiterated that the Appellant's submission was beyond the prescribed time, as per the RFRP guidelines. The Appellant contended that there was no specific time mentioned for submission, suggesting that the Resolution Professional could have accepted the plan before 12:00 PM.The Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's argument, emphasizing that the time for submission was clearly stipulated as 17:00 Hrs in the RFRP. Despite the extension, the Appellant chose to submit the plan after the deadline, taking a risk by waiting until the last hours. Additionally, it was revealed that the CoC had already considered and rejected a Resolution Plan from another entity, leading to the approval of liquidation for the Corporate Debtor. As such, the Tribunal concluded that since the Appellant failed to submit the plan within the prescribed time and the CoC had already made a decision, no relief could be granted to the Appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
