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 must seek Committee of Creditors approval to complete insolvency process within Supreme Court's 90-day deadline</h1> <h3>MEENAKSHI AND KUSHAL GOYAL Versus AMIT AGARWAL, COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS, EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM ASSESSING AUTHORITY</h3> NCLAT disposed of appeal filed by RP challenging adjudicating authority's order. SC had earlier directed completion of CIRP process within 90 days for ... Challenge to order filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) - HELD THAT:- It is clear that Resolution Plan which was submitted by the Appellant was approved on 07.11.2020 by the CoC. It was the Excise & Taxation Officer, Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority filed its Application before the Adjudicating Authority for accepting its claim which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the said Orders was reversed by this Appellate Tribunal, against which, Civil Appeal No. 7514– 7515/2022 was filed. The Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2024 (1) TMI 1382 - SC ORDER] has been brought on record by the Appellant. It is clear that under the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Appeal filed by Excise & Taxation Officer, Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority, the process was to be completed within 90 days and for taking steps in pursuance of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 22.01.2024 [2024 (1) TMI 1382 - SC ORDER], I.A. was filed by the RP. Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order has allowed the Application in terms of Prayer (c) but has not issued any direction as to what process, RP has to conduct. The expression used is “conduct the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for M/s. Mastana Foods Private Limited”. The ends of justice be served in disposing the Appeal permitting the RP to place an agenda before the CoC with regard to necessary steps which are required to be taken in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 22.01.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 7514–7515/2022. It is the CoC which is in overall control of the entire CIRP Process to take such steps as required by law. There are no reason to keep this Appeal pending any further and dispose of the Appeal with liberty to the RP to place appropriate agenda before the CoC, who may take decision and complete the process of CIRP as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Appeal disposed off. Issues:Challenge to Order dated 01.05.2024 by Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) in I.A. 961/2024 filed by Resolution Professional (RP).Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Approval of Resolution Plan: The Corporate Debtor entered Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant was approved by 100% Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 07.11.2020.2. Legal Proceedings and Supreme Court Judgments: Various legal actions were taken, including the Excise & Taxation Officer filing applications before the Adjudicating Authority. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal set aside certain orders, which were later reinstated by the Supreme Court in its judgments dated 06.09.2022 and 22.01.2024.3. Contentions of the Parties: The Appellant argued compliance with the Supreme Court's directions and acceptance of liabilities, while the CoC emphasized the need to follow the Supreme Court's orders within a specified timeframe. The RP highlighted the CoC's authority in CIRP decisions, and an Intervener stressed the need for a fresh CIRP process.4. Supreme Court Directions and RP's Application: The Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2022 emphasized the need for compliance with specific provisions and set a 90-day deadline for completion. The RP filed I.A. No. 961/2024 seeking directions for ongoing CIRP, which was partially allowed by the Adjudicating Authority.5. Decision and Future Steps: The Adjudicating Authority allowed the RP's application in part but did not specify the exact steps to be taken in the ongoing CIRP. Considering the Supreme Court's directives and the RP's intention to present an agenda to the CoC, the Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal, granting the RP liberty to propose necessary actions to the CoC for compliance with the Supreme Court's orders.6. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of, emphasizing the CoC's role in determining the next steps in the CIRP process in line with the Supreme Court's directives. The RP was granted the freedom to present an agenda to the CoC for decision-making and completion of the CIRP process as directed by the Supreme Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
